Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 61620
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
JATHAVEDAN NAMBOOTHIRI – Appellant
Versus
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD – Respondent
WP(C)/13416/2022
M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, ASIF N, BINDU SREEDHAR, K.P.SUDHEER
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to previous court orders and administrative responses in matters of public interest and financial settlements between individuals and public boards.
Headnote:
Writ - Writ of Certiorari - Article 226 - Constitutional Law Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior member of a religious organization, sought judicial review against an order of the Special Devaswom Commissioner regarding the payment for paddy under a surrender agreement, claiming the amount due was not paid as directed in previous judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that based on correspondence and orders from the Devaswom Board and the Special Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioner was indeed compensated as per the terms outlined, except for a specific period which the petitioner must address with the authorities.
Issues: Whether the payment made to the petitioner regarding the value of paddy under the surrender agreement was compliant with previous court orders and whether the petitioner had any further claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amounts due have been settled as per the series of orders, indicating that any further grievances should be addressed through proper administrative channels rather than through writ proceedings.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of as amount payable was settled.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is the senior most male member of Panthal Mana of Irinjalakkuda has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 09.12.2020 of the 2nd respondent Special Devaswom Commissioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to honour the terms of Vachozhivu Adharam, strictly in the deterrence sprit, and direct the respondents to deliver paddy or to pay its cost in two ‘six monthly instalments’ as contained in the Vachozhivu Adharam; an order directing the 1st respondent Board to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation dated 12.04.2021 made by the petitioner; and an order directing the 1st respondent Board to refix the cost of paddy at the present market rate, if the Board is unable to deliver paddy to the petitioner as per the surrender deed.
2. On 08.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions and file statement.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus;
“3. The petitioner is the senior most male member of panthal mana in Rappal village in Irinjalakkuda and known as panthal vaidikan. It is not in dispute that ‘Thiruvazhiyadu Narasimha Swami Temple' in Palakkad district was surrendered to the Highness of Cochin through a Vechozhivu adharam dated 02.04.1946. In terms of the said document, the members of the panthal mana are entitled to visit and stay in the temple at the expense of the devaswom for three days every month and also for nine days during the annual festival called "uthram arattu" coming within the month of Edavam (ME). After coming into force of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the temple is administered and managed by the 1st respondent.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C)No.20023 of 2011 and by judgment dated 14.03.2013, this Hon’ble Court directed the Devaswom to take appropriate decision, for increasing the price of paddy. In obedience to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court the 1st respondent issued Order No.M4.17986/11 dated 15.06.2013. In this regard, true copy of Order No.M4.17986/11 dated 15.06.2013 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(A). In terms of the directions contained in Ext.R1(A), Order No. M4.17986/11 dated 19.10.2013 was issued the 1st respondent. In this regard, true copy of Order No. M4.17986/11 dated 19.10.2013 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(B). Challenging Ext.R1(B) order, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C)No.28983 of 2013 and this Hon’ble Court by Ext.P1 judgment dated 22.07.2015, directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and take a decision de novo and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of three months. In terms of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the Board issued Order No.M4 17986/11 dated 04.02.2016, whereby the 1st respondent has decided to give paddy instead of the amount of penalty to the petitioner. In view of the scarcity of paddy, the Board was constrained to issue Order No.M4 17986/11 dated 27.08.2016 whereby the 1st respondent refixed the rate of paddy at Rs.75 per para. In this regard true copy of order No.M4 17986/11 dated 27.08.2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(C).
5. The petitioner again approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C)No.30495/2017. During the pendency of the said writ petition the 1st respondent issued order No.M4-17989/2011 dated 26.10.2017, whereby the price of the paddy has ordered to be doubled by enhancing the same from Rs.75 to Rs.150 per para. In this regard, true copy of Order No.M4 17986/2011 dated 26.
