High Court Kerala High Court

K. Nalini vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 3 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
K. Nalini vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 3 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29870 of 2008(E)


1. K. NALINI, W/O. MADAHVAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. A. SREEKUMARI, W/O. SANDEEP,

                        Vs



1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :03/11/2008

 O R D E R
                                 P.R.Raman &
                         T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                           W.P.(C) No.29870/2008-E
                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008.

                                J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

The petitioners are the mother and the wife of one Sandeep (died),

who was a licencee of a hotel at Sannidhanam at Sabarimala. Their main

grievance is that Ext.P1 list published by the Devaswom contains the list of

stalls available for auction but that list does not contain hotel No.19. Hence,

they seek to quash Ext.P1 and to include hotel No.19 also for public

auction.

2. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the respondents. It is

stated that the said hotel No.19 is not included in the list for public auction

since that is set apart for the purpose of annadanam by the Board.

The licence issued in favour of the petitioner in any of the previous

year in no way confers a right to insist that every year this hotel premises

should be auctioned. Petitioners have no such right. The licence issued is

only valid for the year in question. When the Devaswom finds that some

accommodation is required, and decided that this particular hotel is required

for annadanam for the devotees, it cannot be said that the said decision to

W.P.(C) No.29870/2008
-:2:-

exclude the hotel is arbitrary or illegal giving any right to the petitioner. In

the circumstances, writ petition is devoid of any merits. The same is

dismissed.

(P.R. Raman, Judge.)

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms