Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam vs Travancore Devasom Board, Rep By Its Secretary

Anil K.Narendran, J

The 1st petitioner, namely, Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam (for brevity 'Alangad Yogam'), represented by its Secretary and the

2nd petitioner, who is the President of the 1st petitioner-Alangad Yogam, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board to permit them to use the original Golika and Kodi, which

are in the possession of the 1st petitioner, in the ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. The petitioners have also sought for an order

directing the 1st respondent-Board to permit the office bearers of the 1st petitioner-Yogam to stand in the front row and participate in all ceremonies

associated with Pettathullal.

The petitioners are seeking the aforesaid reliefs mainly relying on Ext.P13 letter dated 04.01.2015 of the Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple, which is

one addressed to the 3rd respondent-Devaswom Commissioner, Ext.P14 letter dated 31.01.2016 of the Thanthri addressed to the President of the 1st

petitioner-Yogam and also Ext.P15 letter dated 04.01.2016 of the Valiya Thampuran of Alangad Swaroopam addressed to the 3rd respondent-

Devaswom Commissioner. In Ext.P13 letter the Thanthri has stated that the ancient Golika and Kodi presented by Pandhalam Raja to Alangad

Sangham should be used during Erumeli Pettathullal and the usage of new Golika and Kodi during Pettathullal is against the wishes of Lord Ayyappa.

In Ext.P14 letter the Thanthri has insisted the usage of ancient Golika and Kodi during Erumeli Pettathullal. In Ext.P15 letter, the Valiya Thampuram

of Alangad Swaroopam requested the 3rd respondent-Devaswom Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure that the ancient Golika and Kodi

presented by Pandhalam Raja are being used in Erumeli Pettathullal and also to ensure the presence of Kambilly Velichapad in Pettathullal. In the writ

petition it is averred that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa from Alangad area are given special rights and privileges from time immemorial during

Erumeli Pettathullal, till Sannidhanam. Kambilly Velichapad is the only person permitted to enter Sannidhanam without irumudi kettu. The Pandhalam

Raja had presented Golika to Kambilly Velichapad, which is made of Silver, for worshipping Lord Ayyappa. A Kodi, which is blue in colour, believed

to be used for leading the warriors in the war against Udayanan at Karimala, was also presented to Kambilly Velichapad by the Pandhalam Raja.

On 22.02.2021 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on

admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 4th respondent, namely, Sabarimala Swami

Bhakthajanasangham (for brevity 'Bhakthajanasangham'), represented by its Periyon.

The 4th respondent-Bhakthajanasangham has filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is

contended that, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment dated 30.10.2013 Erumeli Pettathullal will have to be led by the 4th

respondent-Bhakthajanasangham in the leadership of Periyon from Ambadath family. The Bhakthajanasangham has already made

arrangements for the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal, which will commence on 02.01.2022 by the ceremony called Pettapurappad at Aluva Mahadeva

Temple. Golika is the idol of Lord Ayyappa. There cannot be two idols in the Pettathullal, which would negate the centuries old practice of

Pettathullal.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 3 and also the

learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent.

Mainly relying on Exts.P13 and P14 letters of the Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and Ext.P15 letter of Valiya Thampuran of Alangad Swaroopam,

the petitioners would contend that the ancient Golika and Kodi presented to Alangad Yogam by the Pandhalam Raja has to be used in the ceremonies

in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal and Kambilly Velichapad and other office bearers of the 1st petitioner-Yogam should be permitted to stand in

the front row and participate in every ceremony associated with Pettathullal. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since

W.P(C)No.815 of 2018 filed by the 4th respondent-Bhakthajanasangham on 08.01.2018 was disposed of on 09.01.2018 by Ext.P12 judgment, the

Office bearers of the 1st petitioner-Yogam, who were arrayed as respondents 5 to 8 therein, could not bring to the notice of this Court their legal and

factual contentions by filing counter affidavit, producing therewith the relevant documents in support of their claim.

Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent-Bhakthajanasangham, mainly relying on Ext.P9 judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in R.S.A.Nos.532 and 645 of 2012 and W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 and also Ext.P12 judgment dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018

would contend that Erumeli Pettathullal will have to be led by Periyon from Ambadath family and in view of the findings in those judgments the

petitioners cannot contend that they should be permitted to use the Golika and Kodi in their possession and lead Erumeli Pettathullal. The learned

Senior Counsel would further contend that in paragraph 12 of Ext.P12 judgment the Division Bench has taken note of the recommendations made by

the Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the Travancore Devaswom Board to include the Golika belonging to Chembola Kalari in Erumeli Pettathullal.

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that, as evidenced by Ext.P11 minutes dated 04.01.2018 of the

meeting convened by the President of the Board to arrive at consensus in the dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent regarding the

ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the year 2018, it was decided that both factions will be permitted to use their own Golika and

Kodi in Erumeli Pettathullal. Conditions to that effect were incorporated in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of Ext.P11 minutes, which were interfered with by this

Court in Ext.P12 judgment dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ

petition. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the question as to whether the Golika and Kodi in the possession of the 1st petitioner-

Yogam, which belongs to Chembola Kalari, are the original Golika and Kodi, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that two

residents of Alangad Desom, who are he devotees of Lord Ayyappa, filed C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 before this Court seeking a declaration that the

residents of Alangad Grama Panchyath are the real Alangad Yogam, who are entitled to conduct and perform all religious rites in Erumeli Pettathullal.

In the said C.M.P., the Secretary of Travancore Devaswom Board filed a statement, wherein it was stated that, after the split in Alangad Yogam, two

sets of Golika and Kodikoora are being used during Erumeli Pettathullal and the allegation by the rival faction is that the other faction has made new

Golika and Kodikoora. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000, by Ext.P7 order dated 13.12.2000. the Division Bench

found that the dispute between the two factions is a civil dispute and it may not be feasible to decide that dispute in a proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Since the dispute can be resolved only by a civil court, the Division Bench directed either parties to file a suit on the question

involved. The Division Bench further held that the question as to whether who is entitled to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal shall be decided by a

competent court of law. Till then, during the festivals, it shall be led by the members of the 4th respondent-Bhakthajanasangham. In Ext.P7 order, the

Division Bench had made it clear that, even though Alangad Yogam is allowed to conduct religious rites during the festival, all the devotees of

Alangad can take part in the activities of the Bhakthajajasangham which may not exert pressure for collecting any amount from the devotees. It was

also made clear that, even though the Bhakthajanasangham is allowed to conduct the festival, that will not give them any right.

Seeking review of Ext.P7 order, the petitioners in C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 filed R.P.No.594 of 2000, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P8 order

dated 05.01.2001, on a finding that there is no error of law in the order sought to be reviewed. However, the Division Bench in Ext.P8 order made it

clear that all the members of the Bhakthajajasangham as well as Alangad Yogam should be allowed to take part in Erumeli Pettathullal and the parties

should not given any room for any altercation or dispute, etc. If any faction of the members want Pettathullal to be performed differently they need not

join the main team. The Travancore Devaswom Board may allow them to have Pettathullal separately. As per Ext.P8 order, for the year 2001, the

leadership should be given to the Bhakthajanasangham.

The petitioners in C.M.P.No.3020 of 2000 filed O.S.No.255 of 2001 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, seeking a declaration of their

right to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal, after conducting Pankapooja at Perumbavoor and Ramapuram Temple and also to accompany Thiruvabharana

Yathra from Pandhalam Palace to Sannidhanam. They have also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the members of the

Bhakthajanasangham from interfering with the exercise of their rights. The above suit was tried along with O.S.No.318 of 2003 filed by the

Bhakthajanasangham and O.S.No.319 of 2003 filed by Alangad Yogam and others. By a common judgment and decree dated 07.09.2004 the

Additional Sub Court dismissed O.S.Nos.255 of 2001 and 319 of 2003. O.S.No.318 of 2003 was allowed in part and the defendants therein and their

men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from making collection in the name of Bhakthajanasangham to conduct Erumeli

Pettathullal and other rituals and observances at Pampa and Sannidhanam during Makaravilakku festival in the name of the Alangad Yogam.

The judgment and decree in O.S.No.319 of 2003 was under challenge in A.S.No.218 of 2004 and that in O.S.No.318 of 2003 was under challenge

in A.S.No.219 of 2004. The appellants in A.S.No.218 of 2004 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.319 of 2003 and the appellants in A.S.No.219 of 2004 are

the defendants in O.S.No.318 of 2003. By a common judgment dated 26.7.2011 of the Additional District Court, North Paravur, A.S.No.219 of 2004

was allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.318 of 2003 and that suit was dismissed. A.S.No.218 of 2004 was dismissed, by

confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.319 of 2003.

The judgment and decree of the first appellate court in A.S.No.218 of 2004 were under challenge in R.S.A.No.532 of 2012 filed before this Court

by the defendants in O.S.No.319 of 2003. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.219 of 2004 were under challenge in R.S.A.No.645 of 2012 filed by

the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318 of 2003. Those Second Appeals were heard along with W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 filed by the Bhakthajanasangham

challenging the order dated 10.01.2013 of the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby it was informed that only the claim of Alangad

Yogam to perform Pettathullal is recognised by the Board.

In Ext.P9 judgment dated 13.10.2013, the Division Bench found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318 of 2003 have not filed the suit in a representative

capacity and the publication under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also not been made, after getting permission. In O.S.No.319 of

2003 an application under Order I Rule 8 of the Code was filed, which was allowed by the trial court. The Division Bench found that the publication

effected in O.S.No.319 of 2003 under order I Rule 8 of the Code cannot hold good as the plaintiffs have limited the area of Alangad Yogam to certain

places alone. Therefore, both the suits are not at all comprehensive to consider the various aspects concerning the rights of the devotees in Alangad

Yogam. Therefore, the Division Bench, by Ext.P9 judgment dated 30.10.2013, dismissed O.S.Nos.318 of 2003 and 319 of 2003, leaving open all the

issues for consideration in appropriate suits, which may have to be filed comprehensively enough by the parties concerned or others. The Division

Bench made it clear that the findings by the lower appellate court will not operate as res judicata if any fresh suit is filed in the matter. However, the

finding regarding the places included in the erstwhile Alangad Rajyam was confirmed by the Division Bench, in the light of the details available from

the historical aspects.

Insofar as the challenge made in W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013, against the order dated 10.01.2013 of the Travancore Devaswom Board is

concerned, the Division Bench, after taking note of Exts.P7 and P8 orders and also the subsequent orders/judgments, issued various directions in

paragraph 38 of Ext.P9 judgment, which read thus:

After considering various aspects as noted above, we pass the following order:

i) Pettathullal at Erumeli will be led by the petitioner, viz. Sabarimala Swami Bhaktajana Sanghom through the Periyon from Ambadath family;

ii) All the devotees who are desirous to join Pettathullal and to have Darsan at Sabarimala from the entire Alangad desom as found by us in para.28 above, will be

allowed to join the petitioner. They will be allowed to take part in all the religious functions including the visit to the Temples concerned and other poojas and

religious functions at Sabarimala and other places like Pamba, etc. All the parties herein and other organisations will co-operate with the same;

iii) The Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to issue appropriate directions in the matter through the officers concerned, in terms of the spirit of this order; to

enable the smooth conduct of Pettathullal by Alangad Yogam;

iv) We direct the Board and the Devaswom Commissioner to issue appropriate directions to the local officers at Erumeli, Pamba and Sabarimala for the smooth

compliance of the directions as above.

It was suggested by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. Sreekumar that this Court can direct the issuance of badges to the devotees. We need only direct that

opportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees who are from the areas mentioned above and in case there occurs any dispute regarding the identity of

anybody, the Devaswom Officer concerned at Erumeli will resolve the dispute by referring to the documents, if any, made available by such devotees. The Board will

continue to allow all the privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Alangad Yogam during Pettathullal as well as the privileges at Pampa and Sabarimala and other places.

In Ext.P9 judgment, the Division Bench made it clear that, opportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees who are from the areas mentioned

above and in case there occurs any dispute regarding the identity of any devotees, the concerned Devaswom Officer at Erumeli will resolve the

dispute by referring to the documents, if any, made available by such devotees. The Travancore Devaswom Board will continue to allow all the

privileges hitherto enjoyed by Alangad Yogam during Pettathullal as well as the privileges at Pampa and Sabarimala and other places. In Ext.P9

judgment it was made clear that the direction contained therein will have application for the year 2013 and in future till a proper scheme is framed by

the civil court. Accordingly, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.10870 of 2013 by quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2013.

Seeking review of Ext.P9 judgment in W.P. (C)No.10870 of 2013, R.P.No.1023 of 2013 was filed by Alangad Yogam, which was disposed of by

an order dated 03.01.2014, clarifying that the order passed in paragraph 38 of Ext.P9 judgment will mean that “Periyon from Ambadath Family will

lead Pettathullalâ€​.

After the dismissal of O.S.Nos.318 of 2003 and 319 of 2003 by Ext.P9 judgment in R.S.A.Nos.532 of 2012 and 645 of 2012, certain persons

representing Alangad Yogam filed I.A.No.670 of 2014 in O.P.No.121 of 2014 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to

institute a suit for settling a scheme for the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal by Alangad Yogam during Makaravilakku festival at Sabarimala. That

application ended in dismissal by Ext.P10 order dated 30.11.2016, on the ground that none of the ingredients necessary to bring the subject matter for

a suit under Section 92 of the Code is made out.

As evidenced by Ext.P11 minutes dated 04.01.2018 of the meeting convened by the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board to arrive at

consensus in the dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent regarding the ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the

year 2018, it was decided that both factions will be permitted to use their own Golika and Kodi in Erumeli Pettathullal. Conditions to that effect were

incorporated as clauses 3, 4 and 5 in Ext.P11 minutes. The aforesaid conditions in Ex.P11 minutes were under challenge in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018

filed by Bhakthajanasangham. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment dated 09.01.2018, wherein the Division Bench held that clauses

3, 4 and 5 of Ext.P11 minutes are impermissible and cannot be allowed to operate. As per clause 3 of Ext.P11 minutes, permission has been granted

to allow the members of Chembola Kalari to carry their own Golika and Kodi, in addition to the ritualistic one allowed to be carried by the Periyon.

The Division Bench found that it cannot give support to this permission granted in Ext.P11, because by doing so, it will only lead to more factionalism

and disputes between the parties. Further the materials on record do not support the case of Alangad Yogam that two sets of Golikas and kodis are

ritualistically permitted to accompany Pettathullal. In paragraph 17 of Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench issued various directions, which read thus:

In the compendium of our view as above, we make the following directions to the competent Authorities of the Travancore Devaswom Board:

(a) Sri.A.K.Vijayakumar of Ambadath Tharavad, who is the elected Periyon, will lead the Alangad-Erumeli Pettathullal this year.

(b) Only the Golaka and flag of the Ambadath family will be allowed to be carried during the Alangad Pettathullal Procession and event and no other.

(c) Sri.Sankaran Venugopal Kambilly, Kambillil House, Muppathadom, Aluva will be allowed to carry the Golaka of the Ambadath family and to accompany the

Periyon.

(d) The Administrative Officer, Erumeli will issue passes to every person who approaches him with a desire to take part in the Alangad Pettathullal, after verification

of the credentials of such persons and after ensuring that each such person is entitled to be part of the event in terms of paragraph 28 of Exhibit P1 judgment.

(e) No person who has not been issued with a pass by the Administrative Officer, Erumeli as aforedirected will be allowed to take part in the Alangad Pettathullal.

In paragraph 18 of Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench made it clear that the aforesaid directions will govern the field for the year 2018 and similar

directions for the next year can be considered at the appropriate time, depending upon the manner in which the event is held in the year 2018.

The findings in Ext.P12 judgment of the Division Bench referred to hereinbefore are against the use of two sets of Golikas and Kodis during

Erumeli Pettathullal. In Ext.P12 judgment the Division Bench expressly dissuaded themselves from granting any approval for permitting two different

Golikas during Erumeli Pettathullal, since it will lead to more acrimony between the members of the alleged groups, which would cause the sanctity of

the rituals itself to be severely compromised.

During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since W.P(C)No.815 of 2018 filed by the

4th respondent on 08.01.2018 was disposed of on 09.01.2018 by Ext.P12 judgment, the office bearers of the Alangad Yogam, who were arrayed as

respondents 5 to 8 therein, could not bring to the notice of this Court their legal and factual contentions by filing counter affidavit, producing therewith

the relevant documents like Exts.P13 and P14 letters of the Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and Ext.P15 letter of the Valiya Thampuram of Alangad

Swaroopam, as per which the ancient Golika and Kodi presented to Alangad Yogam by the Pandhalam Raja has to be used in the ceremonies in

connection with Erumeli Pattathullal, which should be led by Kambilly Velichapad.

The question as to whether the Golika and Kodi which are in the possession of Alangad Yogam have to be used in Erumeli Pettathullal, in

exclusion of that in the possession of Bhakthajanasangham is a dispute, which has to be decided by the competent civil court. It cannot be adjudicated

in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the observations referred to hereinbefore made by the Division Bench in

Ext.P12 judgment in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. If the petitioners have a case

that there is error apparent on the face of Ext.P12 judgment, they could have invoked the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code

of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, if they have a case that the reasoning or observations of the Division Bench in Ext.P12 judgment is erroneous,

they could have challenged that judgment by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court.

In view of the aforesaid findings in Ext.P12 judgment, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the

writ petition is accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to establish their claim in relation to the aforesaid Golika

and Kodi by approaching the competent civil court. No order as to costs.