High Court Kerala High Court

Aji Velikkadu vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Aji Velikkadu vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34863 of 2009(C)


1. AJI VELIKKADU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,

3. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

4. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

5. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

6. THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :15/01/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =
                        W.P.(C) NO. 34863 OF 2009
                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

          DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010.

                              J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Removal of the Temple Advisory Committee on serious misconduct,

has lead to the filing of this writ petition by the removed Committee. The

Ombudsman has submitted a report pointing out certain aspects. It is an

admitted fact that serious allegations of misappropriation and irregularity in

the matter of maintaining accounts are found against the previous

committee. But no notice of hearing was given. If the Temple Advisory

Committee is removed for any other reason, it is not as though such notice

is contemplated under law since the constitution of the Advisory Committee

is mainly to assist the Devaswom in the administration of the temple affairs.

Therefore, there may not be any vested right as such. But when somebody

is accused of having committed misappropriation, a notice could have been

given by the Commissioner. However, in the absence of any such vested

right and the removal is only from a Temple Advisory Committee, we do

not think that the matter requires further consideration, but the reasons

WP(C) 34863/2009 2

stand vacated as the finding is without notice.

Therefore, while the removal of the committee is not interfered with,

the finding is vacated and in case the Commissioner feels that finding has to

be sustained for valid reasons, then he may issue notice and afford an

opportunity to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.

P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.

KNC/-