K.C.Velayudhan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26298 of 2009(F)


1. K.C.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE,

3. THE COMMISSIONER,

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

5. THE CHAIRMAN,

6. SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR

7. KERALA STATE LOCAL FUND AUDIT EXAMINER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :18/09/2009

 O R D E R
          P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                    -------------------------------

                    W.P.(C) No. 26298 OF 2009

                    -------------------------------

               Dated this the 18th September, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Petitioner is one of the hereditary trustee of the

Kottiyoor Devaswom, who has approached this Court earlier

also by filing writ petitions. In the last writ petition filed, W.P.

(C) No.12496 of 2009, his grievance was against Exts.P3 and P4

produced in that case, which was directed to be disposed of, in

accordance with law. The present grievance of the petitioner is

that Exts.P8 and P9 decisions are taken without obtaining the

signature of all the trustees, as required by Rule 9 of the HR & CE

Act, which according to him, mandates that proceedings shall be

drafted and signed by all the trustees. It is contended that in so

far as this has not been followed by the Chairman, based on such

proceedings, no steps shall be taken to implement those decision.

W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009

2

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondents 2 to 4, as also the learned Government Pleader, at

the admission stage itself.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents 2 to 4 contended that the present writ petition raises

the similar grievance as raised in the earlier writ petition, stated

above. Therefore, we posted the case along with judges papers

of the earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2009.

However, we find that the relief as such prayed for in the present

writ petition is not similar to that raised in the earlier writ

petition. Therefore, the contention that the relief sought for is

same cannot be accepted.

4. Coming to the merit of the contentions, we find,

petitioner admits having put signatures at the beginning of the

meeting, but the final proceedings are not signed. Both Exts.P8

and P9 are signed by the Chairman. There is a time gap of four

months between Exts.P8 and P9 decisions. If Ext.P8 decision is

W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009

3

rendered without the concurrence of trustees, the same should

have been brought to notice immediately, or at least before the

next meeting, or the aggrieved person could raise a complaint

before the appropriate authority, when possibly it may instill

confidence in the mind of the Court that such a complaint has

some merit for further consideration. But unfortunately, no such

petition is seen filed in this case before any authority. Though it

is submitted that Ext.P7 representation has been submitted

before the second respondent, to enquire into the irregularities

committed by the Chairman, that objection is seen raised by

some other person and not the petitioner, and also not on the

issue now raised.

5. In the absence of any materials placed on record

to show that such an objection was raised at the appropriate time

or at least later in point of time, we cannot entertain a writ

petition, challenging the decisions to be quashed. Before

considering as to what is the procedure adopted and whether

actually proceedings are not signed by the parties are matters of

W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009

4

factual dispute. Therefore, at this belated stage, we cannot issue

any direction to quash Exts.P8 and P9. However, this will not

absolve the requirement of Rule 9 of HR & CE Act being strictly

complied with. We hence direct that minutes of the meeting held

shall be looked into by the authorities, and if there is any

irregularity, the same shall be considered and appropriate

direction be given to comply with Rule 9 of HR & CE Act, in all

future meetings.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Send a copy of this judgment to the respondents

for information at the expense of the petitioner.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

nj.