Sree Panimoola Bhagavathi Devaswom Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Rural, Thiruvananthapuram - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/31880
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-14-2015
JudgeHonourable the Ag.Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan
AppellantSree Panimoola Bhagavathi Devaswom
RespondentThe Superintendent of Police, Rural, Thiruvananthapuram
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable the ag.chief justice mr.ashok bhushan & the honourable mr.justice a.m.shaffique wednesday, the14h day of january201524th pousha, 1936 wp(c).no. 33609 of 2014 (a) ---------------------------- petitioners : ----------------- 1. sree panimoola bhagavathi devaswom, aged81years represented by their president, andoorkonam pothencode, thiruvananthapuram2 the secretary, sree panimoola bhagavathi devaswom, andoorkonam pothencode, thiruvananthapuram3 treasurer, sree panimoola bhagavathi devaswom, andoorkonam pothencode, thiruvananthapuram by adv. sri.mohan c.menon respondents : ------------------- 1. the superintendent of police, rural, thiruvananthapuram695006.2. k. ramachandran nair, abhiramam, kannanmoola, medical college p.o thiruvananthapuram695014.3. k. damodaran nair, souparnika, andoorkonam, thiruvananthapuram695584.4. k. bhuvanachandran nair, sub inspector of police (telecom), pattom thiruvananthapuram695004. r1 by state attorney, sri. p. vijayaraghavan r2 by adv. sri.g.biju r2 by adv. sri.s.jayaprakash (madavoor) r3 by adv. sri.r.d.shenoy (sr.) r3 by adv. sri.m.v.thamban r3 by adv. sri.r.reji r3 by adv. smt.thara thamban r3 by adv. sri.b.bipin r3 by adv. sri.arun bose this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on1401-2015, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 33609 of 2014 (a) -------------------------------- appendix petitioners' exhibits : ------------------------------ exhibit p1 : true copy of the judgment dated2907-2000 in o.s no1081991 before the sub court, attingal. exhibit p2 : true copy of the judgment dated2511-2014 in ca100562014 (arising out of slp30382010) of the hon'ble supreme court of india). exhibit p3 : true copy of the representation dated0612-2014 submitted before the ist respondent. exhibit p4 : true copy of the order dated0711.2001 in cmp no.6138 of2001in c.m.p. no.1473/2001 of the high court of kerala. exhibit p5 : true copy of the proceedings of the receiverr, along with its english translation. exhibit p6 : true copy of the decree dated2802.2003 in o.s. no.86/2000 of the sub court, attingal along with the english translation. exhibit p7 : true copy of the procededings of the managing committee of sree panimoola devaswom, dated16120.2012 along with its english translation. exhibit p8 : true copy of the registered letter dated0408.2014 issued by president, sree panimoola devaswom, along with its english translation. exhibit p9 : true copy of the communication dated1509.014 from the president, sree panimoola devaswom. respondents' exhibits : ------------------------------- exhibit r2(a) : true copy of the deed handing over administration of the temple to the working committee presided by2d respondent. exhibit r4(a) : true ocpy of the written statement filed by additional defendants8to14in o.s. no.108/1991 of sub court, attingal. exhibit r4(b) : true ocpy of the relevant pages of the slp no.3038/2010 paper book showing the possession of parties. exhibit r4(c) : true copy of the order of the supreme court dated2707.2012. exhibit r4(d) : true copy of the order of the hon'ble high court dated2711.2000 in cmp no.6231/2000 in a.s. no.627/2000. exthibit r4(e) : true copy of the order of the hon'ble high court dated0712.2009 in r.p. no.1139/2009(m). exhibit r4(f) : true copy of the minutes of the general body meeting held on3006.2013 along with english translation. wp(c).no. 33609 of 2014 (a) -------------------------------- exhibit r4(g) : true copy of the draft bye-law prepared by the bye-law preparation committee. exhibit r4(h) : true copy of the minutes of the general body meeting held on0806.2014 approving the draft bye-law along with english translation. exhibit r4(i) : true copy of the lawyers notice dated2312.2014 along with enlgish translation. exhibit r4(j) : true copy of the paper publication dated0812.2014 along with enlgish translation. exhibit r4(k) : true copy of the paper publication dated0712.2014 along with enlgish translation. /true copy/ pa to judge ashok bhushan, ag.c.j.& a.m. shaffique, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.p.(c) no. 33609 of2014- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 14th day of january, 2015 judgment shaffique, j.the petitioners have approached this court seeking for the following reliefs: "a. a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the 1st respondent to afford sufficient protection to eject respondents 2 to 4 and their henchmen who are usurpers, in the administration and management of sree panimoola bhagavathi devaswom enabling the full and final implementation of exhibit p2 judgment of the apex court dated 25.11.2014 in letter and spirit." 2. petitioners, claim to be the representatives of 7 families, who own a private temple. there has been dispute with certain members of the public who had claimed that the temple is a public temple and a suit was filed before the sub court as o.s. no.108/1991. apparently the matter reached supreme court and it was declared that the suit is not maintainable as the temple is a private temple. wp(c) no. 33609 of 2014 -:2:- 3. grievance of the petitioners is that they have entrusted the management of the temple at some point of time to an adhoc committee and now the adhoc committee is not giving back the management of the temple to the 7 members of the family whom the petitioners represents.4. going by the averments in the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not think that the request for police protection can be granted in the matter.5. counter affidavit is filed by the private respondents denying the claim of the petitioners.6. though it might be correct that the petitioners' group has right and interest in respect of the temple, as it was declared as private temple by a decision of supreme court, it may not be possible for the police to interfere even if the adhoc committee is not handing over the management to the petitioners or their representatives. petitioners have to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. police can interfere only if wp(c) no. 33609 of 2014 -:3:- there is any law and order situation. in so far as there is no law and order problem, we are unable to grant the relief as sought for. it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties. accordingly, reserving the right of petitioners to approach civil court, the writ petition is disposed of. ashok bhushan, acting chief justice. a.m. shaffique, judge. ttb/14/01
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE14H DAY OF JANUARY201524TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 33609 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. SREE PANIMOOLA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, AGED81YEARS REPRESENTED BY THEIR PRESIDENT, ANDOORKONAM POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM2 THE SECRETARY, SREE PANIMOOLA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, ANDOORKONAM POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM3 TREASURER, SREE PANIMOOLA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, ANDOORKONAM POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695006.

2. K. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ABHIRAMAM, KANNANMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695014.

3. K. DAMODARAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA, ANDOORKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695584.

4. K. BHUVANACHANDRAN NAIR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TELECOM), PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695004. R1 BY STATE ATTORNEY, SRI. P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI R3 BY ADV. SMT.THARA THAMBAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.BIPIN R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1401-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33609 of 2014 (A) -------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED2907-2000 IN O.S NO1081991 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED2511-2014 IN CA100562014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP30382010) OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED0612-2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED0711.2001 IN CMP No.6138 OF2001IN C.M.P. NO.1473/2001 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RECEIVERR, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED2802.2003 IN O.S. NO.86/2000 OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDEDINGS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SREE PANIMOOLA DEVASWOM, DATED16120.2012 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED0408.2014 ISSUED BY PRESIDENT, SREE PANIMOOLA DEVASWOM, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED1509.014 FROM THE PRESIDENT, SREE PANIMOOLA DEVASWOM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------- EXHIBIT R2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE DEED HANDING OVER ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEMPLE TO THE WORKING COMMITTEE PRESIDED BY2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(A) : TRUE OCPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS8TO14IN O.S. NO.108/1991 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT R4(B) : TRUE OCPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SLP NO.3038/2010 PAPER BOOK SHOWING THE POSSESSION OF PARTIES. EXHIBIT R4(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED2707.2012. EXHIBIT R4(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED2711.2000 IN CMP NO.6231/2000 IN A.S. NO.627/2000. EXTHIBIT R4(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED0712.2009 IN R.P. NO.1139/2009(M). EXHIBIT R4(F) : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON3006.2013 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. WP(C).No. 33609 of 2014 (A) -------------------------------- EXHIBIT R4(G) : TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT BYE-LAW PREPARED BY THE BYE-LAW PREPARATION COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R4(H) : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON0806.2014 APPROVING THE DRAFT BYE-LAW ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT R4(I) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE DATED2312.2014 ALONG WITH ENLGISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT R4(J) : TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED0812.2014 ALONG WITH ENLGISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT R4(K) : TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED0712.2014 ALONG WITH ENLGISH TRANSLATION. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J.

& A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 33609 OF2014- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2015 JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a. A writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the 1st respondent to afford sufficient protection to eject respondents 2 to 4 and their henchmen who are usurpers, in the administration and management of Sree Panimoola Bhagavathi Devaswom enabling the full and final implementation of Exhibit P2 judgment of the Apex Court dated 25.11.2014 in letter and spirit." 2. Petitioners, claim to be the representatives of 7 families, who own a private temple. There has been dispute with certain members of the public who had claimed that the temple is a public temple and a Suit was filed before the Sub Court as O.S. No.108/1991. Apparently the matter reached Supreme Court and it was declared that the suit is not maintainable as the temple is a private temple. WP(C) No. 33609 of 2014 -:2:- 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have entrusted the management of the temple at some point of time to an adhoc committee and now the adhoc committee is not giving back the management of the temple to the 7 members of the family whom the petitioners represents.

4. Going by the averments in the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not think that the request for police protection can be granted in the matter.

5. Counter affidavit is filed by the private respondents denying the claim of the petitioners.

6. Though it might be correct that the petitioners' group has right and interest in respect of the temple, as it was declared as private temple by a decision of Supreme Court, it may not be possible for the Police to interfere even if the adhoc committee is not handing over the management to the petitioners or their representatives. Petitioners have to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. Police can interfere only if WP(C) No. 33609 of 2014 -:3:- there is any law and order situation. In so far as there is no law and order problem, we are unable to grant the relief as sought for. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties. Accordingly, reserving the right of petitioners to approach Civil Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/14/01