Authorities cannot override traditional rites without adherence to statutory frameworks for consideration of grievances.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P12 and quash Exhibit P12 by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to re-consider Exhibit P9 petition in accordance with the mandate of Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 4 to 6 to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to decision No. 12(1) dated 04.03.2024 of the 6th respondent till such time a final decision is taken by the 1st respondent on Exhibit P9 petition in accordance with law.

d) Dispense with the filing of English Translation of documents in vernacular language e) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit while considering the peculiar circumstances of the case.” (SIC)

2. “Aarattupuzha Mandaram Kadavu” situated on the banks of Karuvannur river, is the Kadavu where the tradition of “aarattu” of gods known as “devamela”, which is an integral part of the Aarattupuzha Pooram festival takes place. The 5^th respondent Panchayat, as per Ext.P5 decision, decided to approve a draft bye-law as per which the Panchayat had assumed exclusive control of the “balitharpanam” ceremonies taking place at Aarattupuzha Mandaram Kadavu. As per the draft bye-law, the right to conduct “balitharpanam” ceremonies at Aarattupuzha Mandaram Kadavu would be auctioned off by the Panchayat every year and only the successful bidder would have the right to conduct the “balitharpanam” ceremonies at Aarattupuzha Mandaram Kadavu. Any faithful devotee wishing to offer “balitharpanam”, can do so only through the person appointed by the Panchayat after paying the fees fixed by the Panchayat is the condition in the bye-law. Ext.P5 decision of the 5^th respondent was illegal is the submission of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring an Appeal No.101/2023 under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal originally passed an interim order. However, finally, the Appeal was disposed of stating that an appeal under Section 276 of the Panchayat Raj Act would not be maintainable and the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Government as provided under Section 191 of the . The Panchayat finalized the draft as per Ext.P8 decision. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Government in accordance to Section 191 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Now, as per Ext.P12, the Government passed an order in which it is stated that the bye-law is to be approved by the director of Panchayat and the petitioner can approach the Director.

Aggrieved by Ext.P12, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

5. This Court perused Ext.P12 order. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Government has not considered the matter in accordance to Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . It is the case of the petitioner that the Director cannot decide the power of the Panchayat to frame bye-laws.

6. I am of the considered opinion that this Court need not interfere with Ext.P12. Admittedly, the bye- law is to be approved by the Director of Panchayat under Section 256 of the Pa