Panoli Mukundan Achan, Thatallath Gireeshan Achan, and Valappil Bhaskar An Achan v. State of Kerala, Malabar Devaswom Board, Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Board of Trustees of Sree Andaloorkavu Devaswom, and Executive Officer, Sree Andaloorkavu Devaswom

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 27282 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 PANOLI MUKUNDAN ACHAN AGED 72 YEARS S/O KUNHIRAMAN PANOLI TARAWARD , ANDALLUR, P.O.PALAYAD, KANNUR-670 661.** - **2 THATTALLYATH GIREESHAN ACHAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O DAMU, THATTALLYATH ANDALLUR, P.O.PALAYAD, KANNUR-670 661.** - **3 VALAPPIL BHASKARAN ACHAN, AGED 81 YEARS S/O KUNHIKANNAN, VALAPPIL HOUSE, ANDALLUR, P.O.PALAYAD, KANNUR-670 661.** ## **BY ADV MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEVASWOM DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.** -2- W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 - **3 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.** - **4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.** - **5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THALASSERY DIVISION, KANNUR-670 101** - **6 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SREE ANDALOORKAVU DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANDALLOOR, PALAYAD P.O.THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 661** - **7 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE ANDALOORKAVU DEVASWOM, ANDALLOOR, PALAYAD P.O.THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 661** - **R1 BY SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 TO R5 BY SRI.LAKSHMINARAYAN, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners, who are 'Ooralans' of Sree Andallur Kavu Devaswom, of which the 7[th] respondent is the Executive Officer, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that they are entitled to get enhanced yearly honorarium taking into account the provision for payment of remuneration as provided in paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 scheme, revising and enhancing the same at par with the salary and allowances being received by the employees of the petitioners' temple and also taking into account the huge hike in the cost of living and also their inevitable participation in all the rites and ceremonies of the temple as 'Ooralans'. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Board to revise and enhance the honorarium being paid to them, taking into account the peculiar nature of the rites and ceremonies of their temple, the fact that the petitioners are fully engaged throughout the year in relation to the rites and ceremonies at the temple which are inevitable as well, by considering Ext.P4 representation made by them, -4- W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 after affording them an opportunity of being heard, expeditiously, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The document placed on record as Ext.P1 is the Scheme of Management of Andaloor Temple. Clause (5) of Ext.P1 scheme reads thus; “5. At the end of the annual festival the first three trustees shall be paid a remuneration at the following rate for their work and expenses. First trustee Rs.120 a year. Second trustee Rs.150 a year. Third trustee Rs.120 a year.” In terms of Clause (5) of Ext.P1 Scheme, the annual honorarium payable to the hereditary trustees of the temple was revised to Rs.15,000/- vide Ext.P2 Board order dated 23.11.2011. Pursuant to that order, the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board has issued Ext.P3 order dated 23.11.2011. Now, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 07.11.2021 before the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner, seeking further revision of the honorarium. The grievance of the petitioners is nonconsideration of Ext.P4 representation by the 3[rd] respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent and -5- W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board representing respondents 2 to 5. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with. 3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would confine the relief sought for in this writ petition as one seeking consideration of Ext.P4 representation by the 3[rd] respondent. 4. As can be seen from Exts.P2 and P3, the revision of honorarium in the year 2011 was done by the 2[nd] respondent Board. Thereafter the consequential order was issued by the 3[rd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner. 5. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioners for enhancement of honorarium, by directing the 3[rd] respondent to place Ext.P4 representation dated 07.11.2021 made by the petitioners before the 2[nd] respondent Board, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent Board shall take an appropriate decision on that representation, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as -6- ## W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 possible, at any rate, within a further period of three months. 6. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 7. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 8. Therefore, in terms of the directions contained in this judgment, the 2[nd] respondent shall take an appropriate -7- W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 decision, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** AV/1/12 -8- W.P.(C). No.27282 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27282/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION DATE 28.9.1931** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 23.11.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 9.11.2021**