Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 41469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
JATHAVEDAN NAMBOOTHIRI – Appellant
Versus
THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26540 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR, SHRI.ASIF N
For the Respondents: SRI. K. P. SUDHEER, SRI.S RAJMOHAN
Court mandated the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider the petitioner's representation regarding historical supply terms, emphasizing timely legal compliance.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner sought enforcement of terms in 'Vachozhivu Adharam' regarding annual supply of paddy - Claimed entitlement to market value due to non-compliance with previous price increases by the Cochin Devaswom Board. (Para 1)
(B) Petitioner contended that authorities ignored multiple requests for price increase of paddy - Current market price highlighted and pressed for compliance. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as the senior-most family member, invoked rights from a historical document dictating annual paddy supply which was neglected, prompting multiple representations including Ext.P5.
Findings of Court:
Writ petition disposed declaring that the Board must address the petitioner's request in accordance with law, mandating a decision within two months.
Issues: The key issue addressed was enforcement of the terms in the historical agreement and the response of the Board to petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider the representation in alignment with legal parameters, reiterating the need for timely administrative action.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement based on historical agreement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. board's obligation to consider petitions. (Para 3) |
| 3. court orders decision on representation. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to honour the terms of Ext.P1 ‘Vachozhivu Adharam’ dated 02.04.1946, strictly by delivering 365 para of paddy every year to the petitioner or to pay the cost of the paddy at the current market rate and to direct the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation dated 11.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the senior-most male member of Panthal mana of Irinjalakkuda Gramam. Thiruvazhiyadu Narasimha Swami Temple in Palakkad was petitioner’s family Temple. In 1946, petitioner’s father Ravi Namboodiri, honouring the request of the Highness of Cochin State, surrendered this Temple to the Ruler through a ‘Vachozhivu Adharam’ subject to certain terms and conditions. Vide Clause 1 and 2 of that document, the Ruler of Cochin State was liable to supply 365 para of paddy every year to Panthal Mana. The petitioner is entitled to get the support price in cash value at the current market rate, which is equivalent to the quantity of paddy on half-yearly basis. Whenever the petitioner approached the authorities requesting a hike in the price of paddy, they ignored him. The current market price of a ‘para’ paddy is Rs.200/-. It is learnt that the Devaswom Board itself is charging Rs.180/- as the price of a ‘para’ offering. Therefore, the Board has increased the price of the paddy para to Rs.180/-. The weight of a full para paddy is about 10 kg. The price of a kilo of paddy in the Thrissur and Palakkad markets is Rs.30. The present market rate of a full para paddy is above Rs.285/-. The price of paddy is increasing every year. Hence, to increase the amount of paddy due to the petitioner on the basis of ‘Vachozhivu Aadharam’, the petitioner has filed many representations before the Board. The last among them is Ext.P5 representation dated 11.06.2025.
Hence the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board.
4. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that as per the clauses in Ext.P1 ‘Vachozhivu Adharam’, the ruler of Cochin State was liable to supply 365 para of paddy every year to the family of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the support price in cash value at the current market rate, which is equivalent to the quantity of paddy on a half-yearly basis. However, the request of the petitioner to enhance the price was neglected by the authorities. Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent Board dated 11.06.2025 is also so far not considered.
5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of without expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, directing the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision in Ext.P5 representation dated 11.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
