Deepesh K.R. v. P.D. Shobhana, Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ## **`CON.CASE(C)NO.1926 OF 2022`** ``` ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2021 IN DBP No. No.48 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER: ``` ``` DEEPESH K.R., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O K.A. RAMACHANDRAN (LATE), KALATHIL AMBALAPPATT HOUSE, KANIYOORKODE P.O., THIRUVILLWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680594 ``` ``` BY ADV JAYARAJ.M ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` P.D. SHOBHANA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ## **`SRI.K.P. SUDHEER, SC FOR COCHIN DEVASWOM`** ``` THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in Annexure A1 order/judgment of this Court dated 02.11.2021 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters. 2. On 17.10.2022, when this contempt case came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board submitted that an application seeking extension of time has already been filed in DBP No.48 of 2020. 3. On 08.02.2023, when this contempt case came up for consideration, along with DBP No.48 of 2020, this Court allowed C.M. Application No.1 of 2022 in DBP No.48 of 2020, filed for condoning the delay of 104 days in filing I.A.No.1 of 2022 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and the said interlocutory application was also allowed granting extension of time by two months from the date of that order for complying the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters. Paragraphs 2 to 8 of that order read thus; “2. By the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021, DBP No.48 3 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 of 2020 and connected matters were disposed of. Paragraph 9 and also the last paragraph of that order reads thus; “9. In such circumstances, D.B.P.Nos.48 and 49 of 2020 are disposed of by directing the petitioner in DBP No.48 of 2020 to make a proper application before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom, along with necessary documents, claiming appointment as Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple, under Karayma right, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in which event, the competent authority in Cochin Devaswom Board shall consider that request, strictly in terms of Annexure R1(A) guidelines, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard and appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application. DBP No.83 of 2019 and W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2021 are disposed of by setting aside Ext.P5 order dated 02.05.2019 of the Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner shall submit a proper application before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom, along with necessary documents, claiming appointment as Poojakottu Adiyantharam in Pallimanna Temple under Uthralikkavu Devaswom, under Karayma right, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in which event, the competent authority in Cochin Devaswom Board shall consider that request, strictly in terms of Annexure R1(A) guidelines in D.B.P.Nos.48 and 49 of 2020, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard and appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application. The entitlement of the petitioner to make such claim will also be reconsidered, after considering the legal contentions raised by the petitioner.” 4 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 3. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022, which is one sworn to by the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board, various reasons have been stated for seeking extension of time for complying with the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters. In support of that application, additional documents are placed on record as Annexures A1 to A12. 4. The petitioner in DBP No.48 of 2020, who is the respondent in this application has filed a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the extension of time sought for, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(d) as additional documents. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant raised various contentions touching the merits of the issue pending consideration before the Cochin Devaswom Board in terms of the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters. This Court need not consider those contentions in this proceedings, since the only issue that requires consideration is as to whether the Cochin Devaswom Board can be granted extension of time to comply with the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021. 6. Having considered the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid applications and also that contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/complainant, we find that the petitioner can be granted extension of time as sought for, after 5 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 condoning the delay of 104 days in filing I.A.No.1 of 2022. Though the aforesaid applications were filed on 16.10.2021, it was pending before this Court on account of strong opposition from the side of the respondent/complainant, who filed counter affidavit only on 06.02.2022. 7. In the result, C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2022 is allowed by condoning the delay of 104 days in filing I.A.No.1 of 2022 in DBP No.48 of 2020. The said interlocutory application is allowed granting extension of time by two months from the date of this order for complying with the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters. 8. While passing orders in terms of the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.11.2021 in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters, the respondent shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** that no mandamus can be issued directing an authority to do something, which is contrary to law.” 4. On 07.06.2023, when this contempt case came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board submitted that the Board has already passed an order dated 12.04.2023, a copy of which is being placed on record along with a memo. 5. Along with a memo dated 07.06.2023 of the learned Standing Counsel, a copy of the order dated 6 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 12.04.2023 is placed on record as Annexure R1(a). 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board. 7. In the order dated 08.02.2023, after considering the rival contention, this Court granted extension of time by two months to pass orders in terms of the directions contained in judgment/order dated 02.11.2021 of this Court in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters. Now, the respondent has passed an order dated 12.04.2023, which is against the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to challenge that order, in appropriate proceedings, by raising appropriate contention. 8. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we notice that the petitioner is yet to be served with a copy of the order dated 12.04.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that a copy of Ext.R1(a) proceedings has been marked to the petitioner through the Junior Devaswom Officer of Parkottukavu Devaswom. 9. If, as a matter of fact, a copy of that order is not 7 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 served on the petitioner, till date, it is a serious lapse on the part of the concerned Junior Devaswom Officer, which has to be deprecated in the strongest words. When Ext.R1(a) order dated 12.04.2023 is one passed pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment/order dated 02.11.2021 of this Court in DBP No.48 of 2020 and connected matters, after the extension of time granted by the order of this Court dated 08.02.2023 in C.M.Application No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.1 of 2022, the Secretary of the Board ought to have ensured that a copy of that order is served on the petitioner, within a reasonable time. With the above observation, this contempt case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 12.04.2023 in appropriate proceedings. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN 8 Cont.Case (C)No.1926 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1926/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** - **`ANNEXURE A1`** ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.2021 IN DBP NO.48/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` - **`ANNEXURE A2`** - **`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, PARAKKOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM`** ## **`ANNEXURE A3`** - **`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE PARAKKOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM OFFICER, PARAKKOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM`** - **`ANNEXURE A4`** - **`TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 5.9.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT`** ## **`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE R1( A ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.10620/2014 DATED 12.4.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ```