SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
Vijayan Unnithan – Appellant
Versus
Travancore Devaswom Board – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14593 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Resmi A.
For the Respondents: Sri. G Biju, SC, TDB

Mandamus limited to directing consideration of representation by competent authority within time limit.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the respondent Board to consider a representation for fixing 'Paditharam' for the Upadevatha temple of Lord Muraleekrishna and to relieve the petitioner from daily pooja expenses. The court noted the representation was submitted to the Secretary without authority to decide. The court directed a fresh representation to the Board for consideration within three months. Issues framed involved authority to consider temple administration representations and expeditious disposal. The ratio decidendi emphasized proper forum for representations and time-bound disposal. The writ petition was disposed of directing fresh representation and consideration.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for temple paditharam and pooja relief. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel submit on representation authority and forum. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court directs fresh representation to board for time-bound disposal. (Para 5 , 6)

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ ,order or direction , directing 1st respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Exhibit P2 request dated 17.01.2026 given by the petitioner ;

(ii) direct the 1st respondent to take adequate steps to fix the Paditharam for the Upadevatha temple of Lord Muralee Krishna as agreed upon at the time of installation ;

(iii) direct the 2nd respondent to relieve the petitioner from the financial burden of bearing the Nithya Pooja expenses by taking over the responsibility of daily pooja for the Upadevatha temple,”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board seeking to take necessary steps to fix ‘Paditharam’ for the Upadevatha Temple of Lord Muraleekrishna. The said representation has not been considered by the respondents.

3. The learned counsel submitted that he will be satisfied with an order directing the Board to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

4. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that Ext.P2 representation was submitted before the Secretary of TDB who has no power to consider such representations. It is for the Board to consider such representations and to pass appropriate orders.

5. Heard Smt. Resmi A, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced and the materials placed on record, we are of the view that ten days’ time can be granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation addressing the Board. If such a representation is submitted, the Board shall consider and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of three months from the date of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top