IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24118 of 2009(H)
1. S.MEENAKSHMI AMMAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, MANAGING COMMITTEE,
3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
For Petitioner :SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :21/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 24118 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
RAMAN, J.
Petitioner is an occupant in Guruvayur venugopal lodge,
which is under the ownership and control of the Guruvayur
Devaswom. Earlier petitioner was occupying a line building
belonging to the Devaswom on payment of only Rs.40/- by way of
rent per month. She has a right to continue to reside in the said
rent building for her life time by paying the said rent and places
reliance on Ext.P1 for that purpose. So, however, that line building
has been demolished and prior thereto the Devaswom asked the
petitioner and other persons to shift to Venugopal lodge,
whereupon the petitioner vacated the line building and shifted to
the Guruvayur Devaswom Lodge. She has started residing in the
Venugopal Lodge since 2007. But no rent is paid by her. The
Devaswom, by Ext.P2 has demanded an amount of Rs.500/- by way
of rent. Ext.P2 also shows that a decision was taken by the
Administrative Committee to collect rent at the rate of Rs.200/-
WPC 24118/2009 2
from the day on which she started residing and to collect the
arrears in six equal instalments. According to the petitioner
Ext.P4 was issued thereafter in implementation of Ext.P2.
According to the petitioner she is a spinster aged 73 and she is also
disabled. There is nobody to look after her, except Lord
Guruvayurappan. According to her she has no income of her own
and she is only receiving a paltry sum of Rs.200/- by way of
disability pension. In the circumstances she has approached this
Court by filing this writ petition.
2. Even though a representation was made by the petitioner,
the same was disposed of in the usual manner without adverting to
the grounds urgently. Her financial status, age, and her disability
were not taken into consideration while rendering the decision.
3. We heard both sides.
4. Obviously none of the factors pointed out by the petitioner
did receive any consideration by the authorities. Accordingly
Ext.P4 is quashed and the respondent is directed to reconsider the
matter and pass appropriate orders. Till then no coercive steps
shall be taken to evict the petitioner on the sole ground of non-
payment of the amount as demanded in Ext.P2. As an interim
WPC 24118/2009 3
measure until a decision is taken petitioner will pay an amount of
Rs.40/- per month effective from September 2009.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMAN
Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
P.R.RAMAN&
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
—————————————
L.A.A.NO:
—————————————
JUDGMENT
Dated: