Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Sanoop V.V. S/o V.V. Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 39974 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026
For the Appellants : C.R. Sivakumar, Anjali C., Subhaja P., Vipin Kumar K.P.
For the Respondents: K.P. Sudheer, S. Rajmohan, R. Renjanie, Amal George, P.C. Sasidharan, Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, Arundhati Nair, O.M. Shalina
The court ruled the Writ Petition challenging the grant of Malikhana was not maintainable under Article 363, affirming the hereditary rights based on historical agreements.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition challenging the legality of an order granting Malikhana - The petitioner contended that Malikhana was abolished by the 26th Amendment - The respondents claimed its continuation based on prior agreements with the British - The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge hereditary rights of the Zamorin Raja family or Malikhana's legal status. (Paras 28-40)
(B) Writ of prohibition - Standard for issuance - The court reiterated that a writ of prohibition must be awarded sparingly, warranting strong reasons, in light of the standards established in prior judgments. (Paras 43-44)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the District Collector's order granting Malikhana to a member of the Zamorin Raja family, asserting the allowance was abolished by the 26th Amendment and the beneficiary was unfit due to financial delinquency.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the Writ Petition was not maintainable under Article 363 of the Constitution, asserting the absence of locus standi on the petitioner's part to challenge hereditary rights.
Issues: The primary issues were maintainability of the Writ Petition and the petitioner's standing to file it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Writ Petition could not proceed given the explicit bar under Article 363 of the Constitution, and the claimant’s continued acceptance of Malikhana did not contravene the Amendment’s provisions on privy purses.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges administrative decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. historical role of zamorin raja in temple administration. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. application of article 363 limits judicial review. (Para 30 , 37 , 40) |
| 4. determination of petitioner's standing is crucial. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 5. writ dismissed with costs imposed. (Para 44 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext. P6 order of the 2nd respondent, the District Collector, Kozhikode.
2. The petitioner, Sanoop V.V., states that he is a devotee of Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple and alumnus of Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College. According to him, he approached this Court to protect the sanctity and transparency of the temple and the administration of educational institutions managed by the Zamorin’s Kovilakam.
3. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent, District Collector, Kozhikode, by Ext.P6 order has granted Malikhana – a hereditary political pension granted by the British Government to the Zamorin Raja – to the late Sri. K. C. Ramachandran Raja. According to the petitioner, Malikhana was abolished by the 26th Amendment of the Constitution of India in 1971. The petitioner states that the 8th respondent, Sri. P.K. Kerala Varma, has staked a claim to receive Malikhana.
4. The petitioner further states that the 8th respondent, being the Managing Director of M/s. Narniat Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., is a defaulter to the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 82.95 Crores. The 8th respondent is facing coercive actions from the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation for statutory non-compliance, thereby rendering him unfit to hold any fiduciary or religious office.
5. The petitioner states that he is a devotee of Sree Valayanadu Temple and deeply committed to the protection of the interests of the deity. The petitioner states that Zamorin Raja of Calicut, traditionally known as ‘Samoothiri’, is the hereditary head of the Zamorin’s Kovilakam. Although his political authority ended with the integration of princely states into the Indian Union, the Raja continues to hold a recognised role in the administration and cultural supervision of temples and educational institutions established and managed by the Kovilakam.
6. The petitioner contends that in temple administration, the Zamorin Raja serves as the hereditary trustee of several ancient temples. His trusteeship is legally recognised under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for the sake of brevity, ‘the Act’).
7. The petitioner further contends that the management of the temples is exercised by the Raja, which includes oversight of the temple committees responsible for daily administration, conduct of rituals and festivals, appointment of priests and other staff, maintenance of temple properties and financial management. He also acts as an approval authority in the temples. It is contended that the Raja performs important ceremonial and religious roles in the temples.
8. It is further contended that the role of Zamorin remains consultative, where the temples come under the supervisory control of the Devaswom Department or the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The Raja ensures that hereditary customs, temple traditions and the dignity of the office of trustee are maintained in accordance with long-standing practices.
9. In addition to the administrative functions pertaining to the temple, the Zamorin Raja holds a substantive and influential role in the domain of education. The Zamorin’s Kovilakam has founded several educational institutions, most notably Zamorin’s Guruvayurappan College, Kozhikode. These institutions are administered by registered Trusts or governing bodies in which the Zamorin Raja functions as the Chairman or Patron. In this capacity, he oversees policy matters, appointments of Principals and teaching staff in compliance with University and Governmen
