JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Kurumba Bhagavathy Temple at Kodungallur, a temple under the management of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to bestow the 'karaima' right of Neelath Madom family to conduct poojas in Sree Kurumba Bhagavathy Temple, Kodungallur, to any person or family under the guise that such person or family are relatives of the extinct Neelath Madom family. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that after the extinction of Neelath Madom family the right of 'karaima Santhi' of Neelath Madom has also ceased to exist.

2. On 14.12.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to address arguments on the maintainability of this writ petition with the aforesaid reliefs, without the affected parties in the party array.

3. On 27.01.2022, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of

2022, seeking an order to implead one V.D. Prakasan of Vadakkedathmana, as additional 4th respondent in this writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of that interlocutory application, it is stated that, Sri.V.D. Prakasan is a relative of Neelath Madom, who is attempting to get the right of Neelath Madom claiming that since Neelath Madom family has ceased to exist the right of that family should be given to him as a relative of that family.

4. On 04.02.2022 this Court allowed I.A.No.1 of

2022 as prayed for. This Court admitted the writ petition on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the additional 4th respondent.

5. On 05.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that Kunnath Madom, Madathil Madom and Neelath Madom are having 'karaima' in Sree Kurumba Bhagavathy Temple, Kodugallur. The learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent submitted that he is not a member of Neelath Madom. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to get instructions.

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent.

7. After arguing for some time, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised in the writ petition and without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, seeking appropriate reliefs.

Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised and without prejudice to the legal right, if any, of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, seeking appropriate reliefs in the above matter.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

MIN

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF ANJIKAIMAL DATED 15.07.1938 IN ORIGIONAL CASE NO.43/1009.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN

2001 KHC 819 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 25.10.2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL