IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35233 of 2008(T)
1. BRAHMASHREE THANTRI KAKKAD
... Petitioner
2. SRI.DAYANANDAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 39
3. SRI.UNNKRISHNAN NAIR K.C., AGED 46,
4. SRI.U.K.BALAN, AGED 54,
Vs
1. CHAIRMAN, KOZHIKODE AREA COMMITTEE,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM
3. TRUSTEE BOARD CHAIRMAN, AVIDANELLUR
4. SRI.P.M.NIDEESH, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP,
5. SRI.DILEEP K., S/O.APPU NAIR,
6. SRI.C.PRAKASAN, S/O.KELU CHETTIAR,
7. SRI.RAVI KUTTIKANDI, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR
8. SRI.R.RAVEENDRAN,
9. N.SURESH BABU, NADUNILAYIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJITH KUMAR KANGHINGHAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :28/11/2008
O R D E R
P.R.Raman &
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.35233 of 2008-T
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed as early as on
17.9.2008 appointing non-hereditary trustees, five in number whose names
are contained in the said order. According to the petitioners, petitioners 2
to 4 were earlier agreed to be appointed as per a proceedings of the Area
Committee, but a sudden change is made by Ext.P4 order and that too,
without notice. To substantiate their contention that such consensus was
reached to appoint petitioners 2 to 4, the petitioners have produced Ext.P5.
Ext.P5, on the other hand, would show that S/Shri Dilip K., P.M. Nidheesh,
C. Prakasan, Ravi Kuttikandy and C. Raveendran are those persons who
have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees. The very same persons are
appointed as per Ext.P4. If there is any better evidence for the petitioners, it
is open to them to produce the same and seek the statutory remedies
available to them under law by filing representation or revision petition
before the Commissioner. Due to lack of materials placed on record, we are
unable to grant any relief exercising the discretionary remedy under Article
WPC 35233/2008 -2-
226 of the Constitution of India. However, this will not stand in the way of
the petitioners taking recourse to the statutory remedy.
The writ petition is dismissed.
( P.R.Raman, Judge.)
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/