2024/KER/7098 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH THURSDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 28TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 44006 OF 2023 PETITIONER :-

VENUGOPAL VARRIER, AGED 62 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNA VARRIER, TC NO.55/2150, DEVI NAGAR, KALADI, KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679513 BY ADV G.VIDYA RESPONDENTS :-

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, DEVASWAM HEADQUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND WEST THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

2 CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, DEVASWAM HEADQUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND WEST THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 *3 MANOJ AMBRANTHIRI SREE BHADRA VILASAM, NEAR PALLI PARAMBUKAVU TEMPLE, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682301.

*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 SRI. KP SUDHEER, SC, CDB, SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Chottanikkara Devi Temple, a temple under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Board and the 2^nd respondent Chief Vigilance Officer to consider Exts.P1 and P2 complaints dated 11.12.2023 and take appropriate action against the additional 3^rd respondent, who was the Melsanthi of Chottanikkara Devi Temple. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Chief Vigilance Officer to conduct an investigation into the Google-Pay account and conduct an inspection in the residential premises of the additional 3^rd respondent. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made certain allegations against the additional 3^rd respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, on instructions, would submit that, prior to the filing of Ext.P1 complaint dated 11.12.2023, the petitioner submitted a similar complaint dated 06.11.2023 before the 1^st respondent Board. Based on that complaint the Board issued an order, i.e., M4/14099/23 dated 14.12.2023, whereby the 2^nd respondent Chief Vigilance Officer is directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.

4. The petitioner, who submitted a complaint dated

06.11.2023, which was followed by Ext.P1 complaint dated 11.12.2023, has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition on 22.12.2023, even without verifying whether any action has already been taken by the Board on those complaints. When the Board has acted upon the complaint dated 06.11.2023 made by the petitioner, by authorising the 2^nd respondent Chief Vigilance Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter, vide Board Order No. M4/14099/23 dated 14.12.2023, the petitioner cannot have a subsisting grievance. The manner in which the enquiry has to be conducted, has to be decided by the 2^nd respondent Chief Vigilance Officer in the Vigilance wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any direction as to the manner, in which the 2^nd respondent has to conduct enquiry. Therefore, relief No.2 sought for in this writ petition is beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Insofar as, relief No.1 is concerned, the 1^st respondent Board has already acted upon the complaints made by the petitioner by authorising the 2^nd respondent Chief Vigilance Officer to conduct an enquiry. In such circumstances, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the complaints made by the petitioner