The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Cochin Devaswom Board cannot grant permission for film shooting activities in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan based on the interpretation of previous court orders and directions related to the use of the Maidan for commercial purposes and the need to maintain it plastic-free and free from activities causing disturbance to temple rituals and ceremonies.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the proprietor of ‘Appu Pathu Pappu Production House’ engaged in the production of cinematographic films. The petitioner paid the title registration fee of Rs.1,000/- for the title ‘PANI’, as evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt dated 26.05.2023 issued by the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 21.09.2023 before the 4th respondent Devaswom Officer [sic: Devaswom Manager], Sree Vadakkunnathan Devaswom, which is under the management of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, seeking permission to shoot a few scenes of the film ‘PANI’ in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan. Permission was also sought for parking all vehicles of the production unit and to take food in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan, on the days in which film shooting takes place in Swaraj Round, Thrissur. Permission was also sought for the use of ‘Helicam’ in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan for film shooting. On the request made in Ext.P2 application, the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur, submitted a report dated 27.09.2023. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 order dated 04.10.2023, the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner rejected Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner. In Ext.P3 order, it is stated that based on Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 11.04.2023 in W.P.(C)Nos.26499 of 2018 and 4617 of 2022, the 2nd respondent decided not to grant permission to the petitioner for film shooting in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of Ext.P2 application, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 04.10.2023 of the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to consider Ext.P2 application, afresh, and allow the same with reasonable condition on the usual terms regarding the charges.

2. On 11.10.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the matter was adjourned for the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board to get instructions.

3. The 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 17.10.2023, wherein it is stated that, on receipt of Ext.P2 application, the Devaswom Manager, Sree Vadakkunnathan Devaswom forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner. The 3rd respondent in turn submitted Ext.R1(a) report dated 27.09.2023 to the 2nd respondent Commissioner. In Ext.P2 application, apart from film shooting in Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan, permission was sought for parking all vehicles of the production unit in the Kshethra Maidan and also to take food in the Kshethra Maidan. The 2nd respondent, while rejecting Ext.P2 application, by Ext.P3 order dated 04.10.2023, referred to the decision of the Division Bench in Ext.P4 judgment dated 11.04.2023 in W.P.(C)Nos.26499 of 2018 and 4617 of 2022.

4. In the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent Board, it is stated that based on a news report that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 10.05.2023, with respect to various allegations in the conduct of Thrissur Pooram festival, this Court registered DBP No.32 of 2023, suo motu. The photograph, which forms part of that news report, shows a heap of plastic containers used for distributing food and empty pet bottles near ‘Thekke Gopuranada’ of Sree Vadakkunnathan Temple. DBP No.35 of 2023 was also registered, pursuant to Report No.13 of 2023 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.136A of 2022. The writ petitioner in Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C)No.4617 of 2022 also filed Cont. Case (C)No.1042 of 2023, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in that judgment, by the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. By Ext.R1(b) order dated 26.07.2023, this Court disposed of DBP No.32 of 2023. By Ext.R1(c) order