Madhu T.K. v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943** **RP NO. 253 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2021 IN WP(C) 3648/2020** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER:** **MADHU T.K. AGED 49 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT DEVI DARSHAN, NANGARATHALAMELE, ATHIYANNUR, NEYYATTINKARA.** **BY ADVS. V.S.BABU GIREESAN K.PREETHA JOHN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **3 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **4 S. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. SANKARAN, THAZHEMULLARATHANATHU VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA-695 014.** - **5 A. MADHAVAN, S/O. ANTHONI, MELE VANIKUZHI VEEDU, THIRUPURATHOOR DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA-695 014** - **6 T.K. VIJAYAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, MELE PONGUVILA VEEDU, NANGARATHALA, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE-695 014** - **7 THAMARAKSHY, D/O. GOURI, KODIVILAKATHU VEEDU, HAVING NEEROTTUKARA VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM-695 014.** RP No.253/2021 : 2 : - **8 R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ERUVILAKATH VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA.** **9 SASIDHARAN, AGED 72 YEARS S/O. MRUTHYUNJAN, MEKKE KUZHIVALA VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 104, JOURNALIST ROAD, NCC NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **10 T.K. THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O. TANU PILLAI, PULIMMODU VEEDU, THIRUPRAM DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA.** **BY ADVS. P.GOPAL P.U.SHAILAJAN GOVIND PADMANABHAN G.S.REGHUNATH** **GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANU RAJ** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.253/2021 : 3 : ## **O R D E R** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _**Dated this the 16[th] day of July, 2021**_ Aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.02.2021 in W.P.(C) No.3648/2020, the petitioner in the writ petition has filed this review petition. The writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the Executive Magistrate for handing over the key of Iruvayikkonam Bhagavathy Temple to the public immediately as per the decision in Second Appeal No.631/2001 of this Court. 2. In the writ petition, this Court found that the issue involved is a disputed question of fact. The question is as to which is the Administrative Body entitled to administer the Temple. The petitioner contended that it is 'Iruvayikkonam Kshethra Yogam Committee' which is entitled to administer the Temple. The 13[th] respondent in the writ petition RP No.253/2021 : 4 : contended that 'Iruvayikkonam Bhagavathy Kshethra Yogam Trust' is entitled to administer the Temple. As the issue involved is a disputed question of fact, this Court held that it cannot be decided in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The review petitioner contended that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has ample power under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give appropriate direction to handover the administration of the Temple to the petitioner. In the judgment in the writ petition, this Court held that this Court cannot direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate to put any party to the dispute into the possession of the property, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. During the final hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that there is a likelihood of recurring law and order problem relating to the administration of Temple and the State should therefore be permitted to deal with such situation. This Court therefore held that State Government can indeed exercise its powers in RP No.253/2021 : 5 : case there are law and order problems and the parties to the writ petition will be at liberty to bring to the notice of the State if there is likelihood of such law and order problem. The writ petition was disposed of with the following observations:- “15. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the report received from the Station House Officer and the Sub Divisional Magistrate would submit that there is likelihood of law and order issues relating to the temple activities and the State should be permitted to deal with such situation. The State Government can indeed exercise its executive powers in case there are law and order problems and State will be at liberty to take such action as is permissible under law. Parties to the writ petition will be at liberty to bring to the notice of the State if there is likelihood of such law and order problem. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the above observations.” 5. The counsel for the review petitioner argued that there is error apparent on the face of the records. It was contended that the 13[th] respondent cannot claim right over the administration of temple, since there was no such contention earlier. According to the counsel for the review petitioner, when the State Executive itself is in party array, the direction RP No.253/2021 : 6 : to approach the State Executive is an imposition and is a clear signal for nutralising Ext.P5 judgment. The learned counsel for the review petitioner urged that the judgment relied on by this Court in _**Bhinka and others v. Charan Singh** [AIR 1959 SC 960]_ will not apply to the facts of the case since the said judgment related to a tenancy matter. The learned counsel for the review petitioner urged that paragraph 15 of the judgment is erroneous. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. The argument of the petitioner that the 13[th] respondent cannot claim any right as there was no such earlier contention, is not a ground to review the judgment. In the judgment, this Court has not made any adjudication on the right of the 13[th] respondent. The argument of the counsel for the review petitioner that when the State itself is a party to the writ petition, direction to approach the State is improper, is also not a ground to review the judgment. In paragraph 15 of RP No.253/2021 : 7 : the judgment, this Court has not directed any person to approach the State Executive. This Court has only held that the State Government can exercise its executive powers in case there is law and order problem. Parties to the writ petition, including the review petitioner, were granted liberty to bring to the notice of the State if there is any likelihood of such law and order problem. 8. In short, the petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting review of the writ petition. In _**Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra** [2019 (3) SCALE 357]_ , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under the guise of review, a Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment. An error which can be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error must be self evident. Tested on these parameters, exercise of review jurisdiction would not be justified on the grounds urged by the review petitioner. RP No.253/2021 : 8 : In the circumstances, the review petition is found to be devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/16.07.2021