High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2023-11-21Disposed of

Manikandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (Review Petitions Nos. 826/2023; 1029/2023; 1049/2023; 1237/2023 in WP(C) Nos. 1190/2023, 18395/2021, 13238/2021, 14682/2023)

Case / Petition Number:RP Nos. 826/2023; 1029/2023; 1049/2023; 1237/2023 in WP(C) Nos. 1190/2023, 18395/2021, 13238/2021, 14682/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
P. G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date: 2023-11-21
Court Decision / Holding: Review petitions disposed of. The court fixes the misstatement by replacing the observation in the common judgment with a finding that after completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted and accepted by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, and the proceedings were closed. The petitions are thus disposed of; no further merit-based re-hearing is allowed.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manikandan

Respondents

Travancore Devaswom Board
Devaswom Commissioner
Assistant Devaswom Commissioner
Sub Group Officer, Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple
State of Kerala
Joint Director, Kerala State Audit Department
Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau
Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi
Sastamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Prem Chand
• Haliya T.P.
• Mahadev M.J.

Counsels for Respondents

• G. Biju
• S. Rajmohan
• P. Raveendran Pillai
• Sanjay Thampi
• Sunil Nair Palakkat
• K. N. Abhilash
• P. B. Muhammed Ajeesh
• M. A. Ahammad Shaheer
• B. Krishna Mani
• N. V. Sandhya
• Dhanuja M.S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This decision disposes four connected review petitions filed by Manikandan challenging a common judgment dated 22.06.2023 in four writ petitions concerning the Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and related Devaswom matters. The petitioners contend two grounds. First, the common judgment recorded that a final report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge was under consideration; they submit that the report had already been accepted and the proceedings closed, and thus the observation requires correction. Second, they challenge the court’s apparent permission to replace the Golden Flag Mast with a copper-covered mast, arguing inconsistencies regarding custody of gold and paras and urging that this too be corrected on review. The Respondents urge that the review petitions are not maintainable to re-hear merits and that the original observations were properly grounded, emphasizing the limited nature of the review jurisdiction. The court relies on established precedents (Parsion Devi; Lily Thomas; Anantha Reddy) to reiterate that a review is a corrective mechanism, not a de facto appeal. Ultimately, the court finds no error justifying merits-based reconsideration, substitutes the observation to reflect acceptance of the final report and closure of proceedings, and disposes of all petitions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, Order XLVII, Rule 1

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Error apparent on the face of the record
Power of review is limited and cannot be an appeal in disguise
Review is not a rehearing on merits and cannot substitute a view
Two views on a subject are not a ground for review

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends two grounds for review. First, the observation that the final report by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge was 'under consideration' is erroneous because the report has been accepted and the proceedings closed, and the record must reflect that acceptance. Second, the decision to permit a copper-covered Flag Mast, instead of the Golden Flag Mast, warrants correction in light of gold and paras custody and related procedural steps. The review is sought on the basis that the common judgment misstates facts and that the two grounds reveal an error apparent on the record, justifying limited relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the common judgment correctly recorded the status of the final report and the proceedings. They urge that the review petition cannot be used to reargue the merits and cannot become an appeal in disguise. They rely on established jurisprudence to emphasize the restricted nature of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC, that errors not self-evident do not justify review, and that a mere possibility of two views cannot grounds for review.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi	(1997) 8 SCC 715	Positive	Cited to illustrate that review has limited scope and may be available for an error apparent on the face of the record, not for re-hearing merits.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India	(2000) 6 SCC 224	Positive	Cited to support the principle that review can correct mistakes but cannot substitute a different view or be used as an appeal in disguise.
Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria	(2013) 15 SCC 534	Positive	Cited to emphasize the extremely limited nature of the review jurisdiction and the need for a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Manikandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (Review Petitions Nos. 826/2023; 1029/2023; 1049/2023; 1237/2023 in WP(C) Nos. 1190/2023, 18395/2021, 13238/2021, 14682/2023) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **REVIEW PETITION NO. 826 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2023 IN WP(C) 1190/2023** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **MANIKANDAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN ALAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL MANAKKARA, SHASTHAMKOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** **BY ADV V.PREMCHAND** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O, THRIVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695003.** - **2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O.THRIVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695003.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOM COMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM BOARD, KARUNGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518.** 2 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 - **4 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** - **5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEWASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **6 JOINT DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM BOARD AUDIT, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003.** - **R1 TO R4 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB** - **R5 & R6 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 21.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP.1029/2023, 1237/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **REVIEW PETITION NO. 1029 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2023 IN WP(C) 18395/2021** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/8TH RESPONDENT:** **MANIKANDAN,** **AGED 53 YEARS** **S/O VELAYUDHAN ALAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL MANAKKARA, SHASTHAMKOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** ## **BY ADV V.PREMCHAND** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7:** - **1 M.V ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS** - **S/O. VELU NAIR, SREESHYLAM, MANAKARAMURI, SASTHAMKOTTA,KOLLAM, PIN – 690521.** - **2 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O, THRIVANATHAPURAMDISTRICT, PIN – 695033.** - **3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEADQUARTERS, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O.THRIVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695003.** 4 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 - **4 THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNGAPPALLYP.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518.** - **5 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** - **6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **7 THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, P.M.G, VIKASBHAVAN P.O, OPP KSRTC DEPOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **8 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CUTCHERRY JUNCTION, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691013.** - **R1 BY P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI** - **R1 BY SANJAY THAMPI** - **R2 TO R5 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB** - **R6 TO R8 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP.826/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **REVIEW PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.203 IN WP(C) 13238/2021** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/8TH RESPONDENT:** **MANIKANTAN, AGED 53 YEARS** **S/O VELAYUDHAN ALAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL MANAKKARA, SHASTHAMKOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** **BY ADV V.PREMCHAND** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7:** - **1 PERUMUTTOM RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, PERUMUTTATH HOUSE, PALLISSERIKKAL,SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN – 690521.** - **2 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O, THRIVANATHAPURAMDISTRICT, PIN – 695003.** - **3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O.THRIVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695003.** 6 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 - **4 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOMCOMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNGAPPALLYP.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518.** - **5 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** - **6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEWASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **7 THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, P.M.G, VIKASBHAVAN P.O, OPPO KSRTC DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **8 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CUTCHERRY JUNCTION, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691013.** - **R1 BY SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** - **R1 BY K.N.ABHILASH** - **R1 BY P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH** - **R1 BY M.A.AHAMMAD SHAHEER** - **R2 TO R5 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB** - **R6 TO R8 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP.826/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 7 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945 REVIEW PETITION NO. 1237 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2023 IN WP(C) 14682/2023** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT PARTY IN WPC:** **MANIKANDAN, AGED 53 YEARS** **S/O VELAYUDHAN ALAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL MANAKKARA, SHASTHAMKOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 690521.** **BY ADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYA T.P. MAHADEV M.J.** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:** - **1 SASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMASASTHA KSHETRAUPADESAKA SAMITHI, AGED 57 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,R. RAJENDRANPILLAI, S/O RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT MANNILAAZHIKATHVEEDU, PALISSERIKKAL, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691521.** - **2 SASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMASASTHAK SHETRAUPADESAKA SAMITHI,AGED 54 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANKAJAKSHANPILLAI, S/O RAGHAVANPILLAI, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, PALISSERIKKAL, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691521.** 8 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 - **3 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O, THRIVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695033.** - **4 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEADQUARTERS, NATHANCODE, KOWDIAR, P.O.THRIVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695033.** - **5 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM BOARD, KARUNGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690518.** - **6 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690521.** - **R1 & R2 BY SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI** - **R1 & R2 BY SMT.N.V.SANDHYA R1 & R2 BY DHANUJA M.S.** - **R3 TO R6 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TDB** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI S RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP.826/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 9 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------------------R.P.No.826 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.1190 of 2023, R.P.No.1029 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.18395 of 2021, R.P.No.1049 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.13238 of 2021 & R.P.No.1237 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.14682 of 2023** **----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of November, 2023** ## **O R D E R** ## P.G. Ajithkumar, J. W.P.(C) No.13238 of 2021, 18395 of 2021, 1190 of 2023 and 14682 of 2023 were disposed of as per a common judgment dated 22.06.2023. These review petitions are filed seeking review of the said judgment on common grounds. 2. The review petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.1190 of 2020. He is the additional 8[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.13238 of 2021 as well as W.P.(C) No.18395 of 2021. He is not a party to W.P.(C) No.14682 of 2023. However, having obtained leave, he has filed the review petition in that writ petition. 3. The petitioner seeks review on two grounds. The first is that the observations in the judgment that the final report submitted before the Enquiry Commissioner and 10 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in regard to allegation of irregularities and malpractices in the installation of the Golden Flag Mast in the Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is under consideration; whereas the said report was already accepted by that court and the proceedings closed. The second is that when 600 grams of gold and 21 _paras_ are admittedly kept at the strong room at Haripad Temple, the permission granted by this Court to cover the Flag Mast with copper is incorrect and an error is apparent on the face of the record. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board. 5. The petitioner has produced in his Writ Petition the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram accepting the report submitted by the Vigilance in regard to the alleged irregularities and malpractices in the erection of Golden Flag Mast in the Sree 11 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 Dharma Sastha Temple, Sasthamcotta. The proceedings were accordingly closed by that court. However, in the common judgment, it was observed that the said report was pending consideration of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram. To that extent, there is an error in the common judgment. The same is liable to be reviewed and corrected. 6. Permission was granted to the Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate steps for installation of the copper covered Flag Mast in Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, Sasthamcotta, after considering all the contentions of the respective parties. The fact that gold used for erection of the Golden Flag Mast in the Temple, regarding which there arose allegations of irregularities and malpractices, and the fact that the _paras_ used in the said Flag Mast are kept in the custody of the Travancore Devaswom Board, were also brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of the said Writ Petitions. Taking all such aspects into account, and also on finding that erection of a Golden Flag Mast soon is not possible, 12 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 permission sought to erect a copper covered Flag Mast was granted. We find no error in the said finding. 7. In **Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC** **715]** the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code held that, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error that is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 8. In **Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6** **SCC 224]** the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated as an appeal 13 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 9. In **Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria** **[(2013) 15 SCC 534]** the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for a review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit the rehearing of the matter on merits. 10. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, second ground urged by the petitioner is not a reason for reviewing the common judgment. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of ordering that the observations in paragraph No.11 of the judgment that “As stated by additional 7[th] respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, on completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and 14 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in regard to the allegations of irregularities and malpractices in the erection of Golden Flag Mast in Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and it is under consideration of that court. It is for the said court to arrive at a logical conclusion in that matter.” is removed and replaced with the following: “On completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in regard to the allegations of irregularities and malpractices in the erection of Golden Flag Mast in Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and the same has been accepted by that court. The proceedings thereon are accordingly closed.” Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 15 Review Petition Nos.826, 1029, 1049 and 1237 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 1029/2023** ## **RESPONDENT ANNEXURES** **Annexure R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE FAMOUS ASTROLOGER ATTUVASSERY N SREENIVASAN DATED 24.10.2023 Annexure R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT**