Sreevalsan K vs State Of Kerala And Ors

K. Haripal, J

Petitioner claims that he is a resident near Sree Manappullikavu temple, hereinafter referred to as 'the temple', an ancient temple coming under the administrative control of the Malabar Devaswom Board, and a devotee. When the 2nd respondent had invited applications for appointment of non hereditary trustees of the temple, the petitioner filed application; he was also in the shortlisted list. But, after enquiry, respondents 4 to 7 were appointed as non hereditary trustees. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 were appointed as non hereditary trustees of the temple flouting all norms and guidelines. The 4th respondent is the Branch Secretary of the Pandarakkavu branch and local committee member of Yakkara local committee of the CPI(M) whereas respondents 5 to 7 are the branch committee members of the said party. They were appointed as non hereditary trustees on the basis of false affidavits filed before respondents 2 and 3. Moreover, during 2008-2014, the 4th respondent was the Vice President and respondents 5 and 6 were the executive committee members of the Vela festival committee of the temple. The local fund audit had raised allegations of embezzlement of funds by the committee and surcharge proceedings for Rs.1,23,728/- in the year 2008, Rs.14,350/- in 2011, Rs.2,47,075/- in 2012 are initiated and huge amounts are found due for the years 2009-2010. Though the petitioner filed detailed representation, Ext.P1, before the 1st respondent pointing out the above irregularities, without considering the relevant facts it was rejected, vide Ext.P4 order. Thus the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for records leading to Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent and to set it aside, and also to disqualify respondents 4 to 7 to hold the post of non hereditary trusteeship of the temple.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 as also the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent.

It is evident that the petitioner, who was also an aspirant to the post of non-hereditary trusteeship of the temple, though shortlisted at the initial stage, was not considered for appointment. Instead, respondents 4 to 7 were given appointment. But, according to him, they, being active politicians and persons against whom surcharge proceedings are initiated, ought not to have been considered for appointment. Highlighting these grievances the petitioner moved the Government with Ext.P1 representation. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the 1st respondent, after enquiring into the allegations raised by the petitioner. From Ext.P4 it is certain that the 1st respondent had obtained a detailed report from the 3rd respondent touching the allegations. A report was given stating that evidence could not be collected to say that respondents 4 to 7 are active politicians, though they have affinity to a particular political denomination. With regard to surcharge proceedings, it was reported that it was initiated against the committee for the period 2007-2008 and 2011-2012. According to the report obtained by the 1st respondent, the financial liabilities of Vela festival committee are on the President and the Treasurer, that the 4th respondent Sivaraman was only the Vice President. After considering various aspects, the 1st respondent concluded that though respondents 4 to 7 are sympathizers of a political party, the petitioner/complainant could not make out that they are active politicians or persons holding office of any political party. It was also noticed that merely for the reason that their pictures were found in some photographs appeared along with newspaper reports, they cannot be deemed as active politicians. On that score, his representation was rejected, which prompted the petitioner to move this Court with the reliefs aforestated.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. The learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 pointed out that enquiries did not reveal that respondents 4 to 7 are active politicians and office bearers of any political party.

In other words, there are disputed questions of fact. While sitting in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution we are unable to adjudicate on such disputed questions. Secondly, regarding surcharge proceedings, it seems that the stand taken by the 1st respondent is reasonable. For the reason that the 4th respondent was holding the position as the Vice President of the Vela festival committee, or others were in the committee, there is no mandate that they have personal liability, if any, initiated against the committee.

Similarly, with the photographs highlighting that some of the respondents shared the platform of a political party, one cannot jump into the conclusion that they are active politicians. The enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent showed that respondents 4 to 7 were only sympathizers of a political party which, ipso facto, will not disentitle them from holding the post of non-hereditary trusteeship.

On these considerations, we do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. No costs.