Alangad Yogam Trust v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 W.P.(C) NO. 245 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **ALANGAD YOGAM TRUST REG NO.91/IV/2020 ALANGAD YOGAM KAMBILLY SREE DHARMA SASTHA KSHETHRAM, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA - 683 110 REP. BY CHAIRMAN K.AYYAPPA DASS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.PNK MENON, SWASTHI, OLD DESOM ROAD, THOTTEKATTUKARA, ALUVA - 683 108.** **BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.** - **3 SECRETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.** - **4 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY SABARIMALA CELL, ERUMELU - 686 509.** 2 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 **5 ALANGAD YOGAM SABARIMALA SWAMI BHAKTHA JANA SANGHOM REG.NO.139/83, REP. BY ITS PERIYON A.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AMBADATHU, MANJAPRA, ERNAKULAM - 683 581.** **BY ADVS.** **R1-R4 SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** - **R5 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** - **R5 BY SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE** - **R5 BY SRI.R.GITHESH** **R5 BY SRI.P.PRIJITH** - **R5 BY SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA** - **R5 BY SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE** - **R5 BY SRI.MANJUNATH MENON** - **R5 BY SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT** - **R5 BY SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.** - **R5 BY SMT.ANNA LINDA V.J** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 ## W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, namely, Alangad Yogam Trust, represented by its Chairman, Sri.K.Ayappa Dass, has filed this writ petition seeking various reliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the members of the petitioner Trust are also given due and equal representation in Erumeli Pettathullal and they may be issued with passes to participate in the Pettathullal. In the Writ Petition, it is averred that Sri.K.Ayyappa Dass is the Chairman of the petitioner Trust, namely, Alangad Yogam Trust, with Reg.No.91/IV/2020 and the properties of the Trust are the Kodi, Golika, Sword and Churika, which were entrusted by the Maharaja of Pandalam to the Alangad Yogam and the Trust has come into existence for the purpose of Erumeli Pettathullal. 2. On 05.01.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 4 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 5[th] respondent, returnable by 07.01.2022. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions and Registry was directed to incorporate a copy of the judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P. (C)No.22367 of 2021, in the Judges papers of this writ petition. 3. On 07.01.2022, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the petitioner, along with I.A.No.1 of 2022, has produced Ext.P7 trust deed and Ext.P8 notice published by the 5[th] respondent Bhakthajanasanghom regarding Erumeli Pettathullal for the year 2022. 4. The 5[th] respondent has filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Along with that counter affidavit, Ext.R5(f) plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2021 filed by the petitioner Trust before the Munsiff Court, Aluva is placed on record, in which the petitioner Trust has sought for a perceptual injunction against the Bhakthajanasanghom and others in relation to Erumeli Pettathullal. In the said suit, the 5 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 Bhakthajanasanghom (5[th] respondent herein) is arrayed as the 3[rd] defendant. The averments in Ext.R5(f) plaint is to the effect that Alanghad Yogam Trust is in possession of Kodi and Golika entrusted by Lord Ayyappa. On the other hand, the averments in paragraph 1 of this writ petition is that the Kodi, Golika, sword and churika were entrusted by the Maharaja of Panthalam to the Alanghad Yogam. 5. On 07.01.2022, during the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that more than one group is claiming right to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal. The learned Standing Counsel was directed to get instructions as to whether these organisations are collecting any money from the devotees in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal, since, in Ext.P1 order dated 13.12.2000 in C.M.P.No.3030 of 2000, the Division Bench has made it clear that, even though Alangad Yogam Sabarimala Swami Bhakthajanasanghom (5[th] respondent herein) was allowed to conduct religious rights during the festival, all the devotees of Alangad can take part 6 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 in the activities of the Bhaktajanasanghom, which may not exert pressure for collecting any money from the devotees. 6. Sri.Ayyappa Dass, the Chairman of the petitioner Trust has sworn to a reply affidavit dated 09.01.2022, wherein it is stated that he had not mentioned the pendency of O.S.No.6 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva in the statement of facts, at the time of filing of this writ petition; since he bona fide believed that the said suit was exclusively for the previous year. There is no malafide intention on his part and the said error happened inadvertently, for which, he tendered unconditional apology. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that, during the previous years, the Periyon (Sri.A.K.Vijayakumar) had led the Pettathullal at Erumeli and thereafter, it was led by Sri.Rajesh Kurup, who was assigned with that right by the Periyon. The said fact is evident from Ext.P8 notice published by the 5[th] respondent in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the current year. It is alleged that the 5[th] respondent Bhakthajanasanghom is collecting donations from the public in connection with Erumeli 7 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 Pettathullal, which is evident from the fact that a lot of advertisements are there in Ext.P8 notice. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the statement read thus: “5. The dispute in this Writ Petition is in respect of the right to conduct Petta Thullal in the Sastha Temple at Erumeli. As per custom, the members of Alangad Yogam come to Sastha Temple, Erumeli, prior to Makaravilakku. After Petta Thullal, the members proceed to Pamba and then to Sabarimala. The members used to bring Golika and Koci, which are necessary for the ceremonies related to the ritual. The right to conduct the Petta thullal was given to the Yogam by the Pandalam Raja. Disputes have arisen as to the proper or duly authorized persons competent to conduct the Petta Thullal. The Alangad Yogam has split into three factions, i.e., (i) Alangad Yogam Sabarimala Swami Bhakta Jana Sangham (Manjapra Kara); (ii) Sabarimala Ayyappa Swami Temple, Alangad Yogam (Kunnukara); and (iii) Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam (Chembola Kalari). Now a fourth group is formed, splitting from the third faction, i.e., (iv) Alangad Yogam Trust Reg.No.91/IV/2020. 6. It is submitted that the different factions claim that 8 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 the original Golaka and Kodi are with them. Sabarimala Ayyappa Swami Temple, Alangadu Yogam claim that the original Golaka, Sword, Flag and Churika are kept by them in Ammanathu Trust Temple, Kunnukara, whereas Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam claims that the original Golaka and Kodi are those kept by them at Kunnukara Vayalkara Ammanath Temple. The Alangad Yogam Trust claims that the original Golaka and Kodi are kept by them in Kuttipuzha Akathattu Kalari Temple. All of the factions claim that the original is the Golaka and Kodi kept by them. It is for the rival groups to establish, which one is the original and who are competent to take part in the Petta Thullal by approaching competent civil court. Till such time, the Petta Thullal will be conducted in terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in Exhibits P2 and P4 judgments. The above dispute, being a disputed question of fact, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is submitted that there are instances of soliciting money from the devotees by the different factions. Though such practice has been deprecated by this Hon'ble Court, unauthorised collection of money is continued. Also some of these factions do not proceed Sabarimala after the Petta Thullal at Erumeli Sastha Temple. The ritual is completed only after the ceremonies at Sannidhanam. The passes issued to the 9 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 members who are participating in Petta Thullal are nontransferable. This also is being sold to others for money. Strict instructions have to be issued for stopping the above practice. 8. It is submitted that, Sree Saharimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam has filed W.P.(C) No.22367 of 2021 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit them to use the original Golika and Kodi, which are in its possession, in the ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Petta Thullal and also seeking an order directing the Board to permit the office bearers of the petitioner Yogam to stand in the front row and participate in all ceremonies associated with Petta Thullal. This Hon'ble Court found that the petitioner therein was not entitled to the reliefs sought for and the Writ Petition was dismissed. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has made contradictory claims in respect of the Golaka and Kodi possessed by it. In the civil suit filed by the petitioner, before Munsiff's Court, Aluva, petitioner claims that the Golika and Kodi are received by their predecessors from Lord Ayyappa, whereas in this Writ Petition, it is stated to be received from Pandalam Raja. Hence the claim of the petitioner is not reliable and not entitled to get any discretionary relief from this Hon'ble Court.” 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board 10 ## W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 9. W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021 referred to in the order of this Court dated 07.01.2022 was one filed by Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam, represented by its Secretary Sri.K.P.Mukundan, along with one N.K.Sivan, who is the President of that Yogam, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit them to use the original Golika and Kodi, which are in possession of that Yogam, in the ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. The said Yogam claims that they are in possession of the ancient Golika and Kodi presented by Panthalam Raja to Alangad Sangam, which should be used during Erumeli Pettathullal. That writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated 31.12.2021. In that judgment, it was held that, in view of the findings in Ext.P4 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.815 of 2018, the petitioners therein, i.e., Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam, is not entitled to the reliefs 11 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 sought for in that writ petition, which was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners therein to establish their claim in relation to the aforesaid Golika and Kodi by approaching the competent civil court. In that writ petition, relying on a letter dated 04.01.2016 of Valiya Thampuran of Alangad Swaroopam, it was contended that the ancient Golika and Kodi presented to Alangad Yogam by the Pandhalam Raja has to be used in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal, which should be lead by Kambili Velichapad. Paragraphs 19 to 22 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “19. As evidenced by Ext.P11 minutes dated 04.01.2018 of the meeting convened by the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board to arrive at consensus in the dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent regarding the ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the year 2018, it was decided that both factions will be permitted to use their own Golika and Kodi in Erumeli Pettathullal. Conditions to that effect were incorporated as clauses 3, 4 and 5 in Ext.P11 minutes. The aforesaid conditions in Ex.P11 minutes were under challenge in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018 filed by Bhakthajanasangham. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment dated 09.01.2018, 12 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 wherein the Division Bench held that clauses 3, 4 and 5 of Ext.P11 minutes are impermissible and cannot be allowed to operate. As per clause 3 of Ext.P11 minutes, permission has been granted to allow the members of Chembola Kalari to carry their own Golika and Kodi, in addition to the ritualistic one allowed to be carried by the Periyon. The Division Bench found that it cannot give support to this permission granted in Ext.P11, because by doing so, it will only lead to more factionalism and disputes between the parties. Further the materials on record do not support the case of Alangad Yogam that two sets of Golikas and kodis are ritualistically permitted to accompany Pettathullal. In paragraph 17 of Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench issued various directions, which read thus: "17. In the compendium of our view as above, we make the following directions to the competent Authorities of the Travancore Devaswom Board: (a) Sri.A.K.Vijayakumar of Ambadath Tharavad, who is the elected Periyon, will lead the AlangadErumeli Pettathullal this year. (b) Only the Golaka and flag of the Ambadath family will be allowed to be carried during the Alangad Pettathullal Procession and event and no other. (c) Sri.Sankaran Venugopal Kambilly, Kambillil House, Muppathadom, Aluva will be allowed to carry the Golaka of the Ambadath family and to accompany the Periyon. (d) The Administrative Officer, Erumeli will issue passes to every person who approaches him with 13 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 a desire to take part in the Alangad Pettathullal, after verification of the credentials of such persons and after ensuring that each such person is entitled to be part of the event in terms of paragraph 28 of Exhibit P1 judgment. (e) No person who has not been issued with a pass by the Administrative Officer, Erumeli as aforedirected will be allowed to take part in the Alangad Pettathullal." In paragraph 18 of Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench made it clear that the aforesaid directions will govern the field for the year 2018 and similar directions for the next year can be considered at the appropriate time, depending upon the manner in which the event is held in the year 2018. 20. The findings in Ext.P12 judgment of the Division Bench referred to hereinbefore are against the use of two sets of Golikas and Kodis during Erumeli Pettathullal. In Ext.P12 judgment the Division Bench expressly dissuaded themselves from granting any approval for permitting two different Golikas during Erumeli Pettathullal, since it will lead to more acrimony between the members of the alleged groups, which would cause the sanctity of the rituals itself to be severely compromised. 21. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since W.P(C)No.815 of 2018 filed by the 4th respondent on 08.01.2018 was disposed of on 09.01.2018 by Ext.P12 judgment, the office bearers of the Alangad 14 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 Yogam, who were arrayed as respondents 5 to 8 therein, could not bring to the notice of this Court their legal and factual contentions by filing counter affidavit, producing therewith the relevant documents like Exts.P13 and P14 letters of the Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and Ext.P15 letter of the Valiya Thampuram of Alangad Swaroopam, as per which the ancient Golika and Kodi presented to Alangad Yogam by the Pandhalam Raja has to be used in the ceremonies in connection with Erumeli Pattathullal, which should be led by Kambilly Velichapad. 22. The question as to whether the Golika and Kodi which are in the possession of Alangad Yogam have to be used in Erumeli Pettathullal, in exclusion of that in the possession of Bhakthajanasangham is a dispute, which has to be decided by the competent civil court. It cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the observations referred to hereinbefore made by the Division Bench in Ext.P12 judgment in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. If the petitioners have a case that there is error apparent on the face of Ext.P12 judgment, they could have invoked the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, if they have a case that the reasoning or observations of the Division Bench in 15 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 Ext.P12 judgment is erroneous, they could have challenged that judgment by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. In view of the aforesaid findings in Ext.P12 judgment, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to establish their claim in relation to the aforesaid Golika and Kodi by approaching the competent civil court. No order as to costs.” 10. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the 5[th] respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the managing trustee of the petitioner Trust, namely Sri.Venugopal K.G., along with Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam, Chembola Kalari, filed W.P.(C)No.803 of 2017 in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal for the year 2017, which ended in dismissal by Ext.R5(d) judgment dated 10.01.2017. In that writ petition, he was named as Kambilly Sankaran Venugopal. He was associated with Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam, Chembola Kalari, till the formation of the petitioner 16 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 Trust, namely, Alanghad Yogam Trust. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the 5[th] respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the petitioner Trust has raised an inconsistent plea in the plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2020 and in the statement of facts in this writ petition, regarding Kodi, Golika, etc. As noticed in the judgment dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021, the question as to whether the Golika and Kodi, which are in possession of Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam, Chembola Kalari have to be used in Erumeli Pettathullal in exclusion of that in the possession of the Bhakthajanasanghom (5[th] respondent herein), is a dispute, which has to be decided by the competent civil court. It cannot be decided in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the observations contained in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018. Similarly, the question as to whether the Kodi, Golika, Sword and Churika, which are in possession of the petitioner Trust is one entrusted as stated 17 ## W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 in paragraph 1 of the writ petition is also a dispute, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. Without a decision on that dispute, the petitioner Trust is not entitled for any reliefs in this writ petition, especially in the light of the observations contained in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 09.01.2018 in W.P.(C)No.815 of 2018 and also the findings in the judgment of this Court dated 31.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.22367 of 2021. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the 5[th] respondent Bhaktajanasanghom would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in **K.Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority [2022 (1) KLT 168]** in order to contend that the petitioner, who filed this writ petition, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without disclosing the pendency of O.S.No.6 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, is not entitled for any reliefs and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. 12. Admittedly, in this writ petition, the petitioner has 18 ## W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 not disclosed the pendency of O.S.No.6 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, in which Alanghad Yogam Trust has already sought for a perpetual injunction against the Bhaktajanasanghom (5[th] respondent herein) and others in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the reply affidavit filed today as Bench mark that he bona fide believed that O.S.No.6 of 2021 was exclusively for the previous year cannot be accepted. Therefore, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. 13. In **K.Jayaram [2022 (1) KLT 168]** , the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the 5[th] respondent, the Apex Court has reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A 19 ## W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. On the facts on the case on hand, since the appellants have not 20 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 disclosed the filing of the suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court, the Apex Court held that the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. The appellants have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law. Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief. 14. In view of the law laid down in the decision referred to above, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner, who has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court, is not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief and on that sole ground, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. From the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, it appears that at present four groups are claiming right to participate in Erumeli Pettathullal, namely, (i) Alangad Yogam Sabarimala 21 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 Swami Bhakta Jana Sangham (Manjapra Kara); (ii) Sabarimala Ayyappa Swami Temple, Alangad Yogam (Kunnukara); (iii) Sree Sabarimala Dharma Sastha Alangad Yogam (Chembola Kalari) and (iv) Alangad Yogam Trust. As already noticed in the order dated 07.01.2022, in Ext.P1 order dated 13.12.2000 in C.M.P.No.3030 of 2000, a Division Bench of this Court has made it clear that, even though Alanghad Yogam Sabarimala Swamy Bhaktajanasanghom (5[th] respondent herein) was allowed to conduct religious rites during the festival, all the devotees of Alanghad can take part in the activities of the Bhaktajanasanghom, which may not exert pressure for collecting any money from the devotees. 16. In the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, it is pointed out that some of the above factions do not proceed to Sabarimala after Pettathullal at Erumeli Sastha Temple. The rituals in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal is completed only after ceremonies at Sannidhanam. Passes issued to the members, who are participating in the Pettathullal, are non-transferable, 22 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 which is being sold to others after collecting money. Therefore, strict instructions are required to be issued in this regard. 17. Having considered the pleadings and the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we deem it appropriate to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to take stringent action against any organisation, which is collecting money from the devotees in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal. Eligible persons, who are permitted to participate in Erumeli Pettathullal, shall be issued with passes by the Deputy Commissioner, Pathanamthitta or the Administrative Officer, Erumeli Devaswom, only after verifying their identity with reference to the Aadhaar card or electoral I.D. Those persons shall carry I.D.proof, along with the pass, while proceeding from Pamba to Sannidhanam. Only those persons, who are holding the pass along with the valid I.D.proof shall be permitted to proceed to Sabarimala. 18. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, since the petitioner is not entitled to 23 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 the reliefs sought for. However, the directions contained in paragraph 17 of this judgment shall govern the conduct of Erumeli Pettathullal. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board shall communicate the outcome of this writ petition and also the directions contained in this judgment to the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board and also to the Devaswom Commissioner, forthwith. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 24 W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 245/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2000 IN CMP NO.3030/2000 OF THIS COURT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/10/2013 IN RSA NO.532/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS COURT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/12/2017 IN WPC NO.36152/2017 OF THIS COURT.** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/1/2018 IN WPC NO.815/2018 OF THIS COURT.** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.148/2020 DATED 17/9/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR.** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/12/21.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED OF ALANGAD YOGAM TRUST DATED 18.11.2020. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PETTATHULLAL FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.** **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **Exhibit R5(a)** **TRUE COPY OF CAUST TITLE IN THE JUDGMENT IN RSA NO.532 OF 2012 OF THIS COURT.** 25 ## W.P.(C) No.245 of 2022 **Exhibit R5(b)** **TRUE COPY OF CAUST TITLE IN THE JUDGMENT IN RSA NO.645 OF 2012 OF THIS COURT.** **Exhibit R5(c)** **TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2014 IN S.L.P.(C) NOS.7274-7275 OF 2014 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.** **Exhibit R5(d)** **TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.803 OF 2017 DATED 10.01.2017 OF THIS COURT.** **Exhibit R5(e)** **TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER.** **Exhibit R5(f)** **TRUE COPY OF O.S.NO.6 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA.**