Pettah Sree Mutharamman Coil Committee v. State of Kerala & Others; K.Chandrakumar & Anr. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission & Ors.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 31414 OF 2016 ``` ## **`WRIT PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1PETTAH SREE MUTHARAMMAN COIL COMMITTEE PETTAH PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ``` ``` 2KANNAN S/O. C. NADARAJAN CHETTIAR, SECRETARY, PETTAH SREE MUTHARAMMAN COIL COMMITTEE PETTAH PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024, ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.P.C.HARIDAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 ``` - `2 KERALA STATE HUMAN BIGHTS COMMISSION TURBO PLUS TOWER, PMC JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033` ``` 3VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR S/O LAE MUTHAYYAN CHETTIAR, SREEVALLI,AMBALARTHUMUKKU, PETTAH PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SR. SRI.P.V.ANIL SRI.M.ANILPRASAD SMT.LATHA ANAND ``` ``` GP - JIMMY GEORGE ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).28038/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 28038 OF 2016 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1K.CHANDRAKUMAR AGED 64 YEARS AGED 64, S/O.LATE KOLAPPAN CHETTIAR, T.C.NO.29/207(2), LRA 11, LAKSHI VILAKAM, THENGAPURA LANE, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024. 2V. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 53, S/O.NATARAJAN CHETTIAR, KOVILVILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.29/400, THENGAPURA LANE, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SMT.P.ANJANA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TURBO PLUS TOWER, PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ``` - `2 VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR, SO.LATE MUTHAYYAN CHETTIAR SREEVALLI, AMBALATHUMUKKU, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 024.` - `3 PETTAH SREE MUTHARAMMAN COIL COMMITTEE PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.` ## **`WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016`** ``` 3 ``` ``` 4PRESIDENT PETTAH SREE MUTHARAMMAN COIL COMMITTEE PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SRI.P.V.ANIL SRI.P.V.ANIL SRI.P.C.HARIDAS SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).31414/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.31414/2016, 28038/2016]** This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions, W.P. (C).No.31414 of 2016 titled as Pettah Sree Mutharamman Coil Committee v. State of Kerala & Others (first writ petition) and W.P.(C).No.28038 of 2016 titled as K.Chandrakumar & Anr. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission & Ors. (second writ petition). In the first writ petition, petitioner is the committee and in the second, petitioners are the members of the committee and in both writ petitions prayer is identical whereby order of Kerala Human Rights Commission dated 25.07.2016 has been challenged. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner in the first writ petition is an association formed by the members of Vanika Vaisya community which is a denominational set of Hindu religion stated to have been erupted from the thigh of Prajapati after the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas, but before Sudras. The business class are following and adhering certain rites and rituals and practices of their own. While doing so much care and caution has been adhered to maintaining their uniqueness, purity and ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ``` 5 ``` identity. The ancestors of the members of the association had migrated from Tamilnadu and they are a minority in Kerala. As per Ext.P1 bye-laws containing the Rules and Regulations formulated, membership in the association is provided to all existing members of Muthuramman Coil Committee and to Vanika Vaisya members of the branch (Plaka). Velayudhan Chettiar - 3[rd] respondent in the first writ petition is also a member of the association till 11.11.2011 and also office bearer of the committee. In fact, he was instrumental in maintaining the Rules and Regulations as well as the age old traditions, customs, practices and precedents. Respondent No.3 conducted the marriage of his brother’s daughter with a boy from outside the community which is prohibited as per the bye-laws and customs. This fact is evident from the name printed in the invitation card. No permission or intimation was sent to the committee before conducting the marriage which was violation of clause 19 of the bye-laws. General Body decided to censure him from informing about the virtues and vices of the community as per the minutes dated 11.11.2011. By losing the membership in the association various consequences would follow ie., losing voting right, right ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ``` 6 ``` to be an office bearer, right to be formally invited in marriage, deaths and other functions, right to give certain offerings to the deity but he does not have the effect of ex-communication or branding the person as out caste meaning thereby it would not be treated as ostracisation. In other words, the said person can participate in the functions being organized by the other members. The aforementioned decision was challenged by the 3[rd] respondent in the civil suit bearing No.1935/2011 before the Munisffs Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014. Without disclosing the aforementioned decree, preferred a petition on 28.03.2016 before the Kerala Human Rights Commission, which was seriously objected to by raising the objection as well as of the decree but despite that, Kerala Human Rights Commission vide impugned order dated 25.07.2016 accepted the plea by misreading the judgment of the Civil Court by holding that the general body had no right to cancel the membership of the person as member can be expelled only on the basis of the Rules. It is contended that the resolution barring respondent No.3 in the first writ petition from participating in the functions as referred to above did not ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ``` 7 ``` amount to out-caste and was permitted to attend certain functions. The community has separate identity from other sections of the Hindu Religion and is strictly following and adhering to separate rites and rituals. The Kerala Human Right Commission found it to be a case of ex-communication which was neither here nor there. Action is only regarding informing him virtues and vices of the community, nothing beyond. Even otherwise, the Kerala Human Rights Commission is not a appellate authority under statute ie., the Code of Civil Procedure under Order XLIII to sit over the judgment of the Trial Court as the aforementioned judgment/decree was never assailed preferring the statutory appeal provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the order of the Kerala Human Rights Commission is perfectly justified and do not call for any different opinion or reasoning de hors the fact that the civil suit was dismissed as it is not incompetent to deal with the complaint which was an additional remedy than the one chosen earlier. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ``` 8 ``` appraised the paper books. ## 5. The findings of the civil court in the aforementioned suit was rendered on 27.11.2014 which was laid down as under: “23. In order to get the relief of injunction, the plaintiff must prove prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience. Here in this case, the plaintiff was miserably failed to prove his case of excommunication from the society. On the other hand, the defendants had established that the action adopted against the plaintiff by the Committee and the General Body will only amount to non co operation and not excommunication. Only consequence that will follow is that he will not be informed in future about the affairs of the community as a whole. However he is not prevented from attending any functions of the community in his personal capacity. He can freely mingle with other members of the Community. It is proved that, all the members were treated equally even in the case of taking any disciplinary action and the plaintiff cannot be put on another category. Once the members are subscribed themselves to the bye law, then they have to follow the bye Law and the customs in the Community. In short, prima facie case was not made out by the plaintiff. As a consequence to the above decision, no injury is caused to the plaintiff as the plaintiff himself was chosen to become a member of the Community and he is aware of the probable consequence of what he has done. In earlier similar situations, the plaintiff was a party to the decision making process of adopting non-co operation against the persons who violated the bye law of the Community Therefore, the plaintiff who violated the provisions of the bye ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ``` 9 ``` law has to foresee the consequenses which he will have to suffer. Moreover, by not informing the affairs of the community will not cause much prejudice to the plaintiff. It is only the probable consequence of what he has done being a member of the Community. He himself has opted to be a member of the Committee and thereby he makes himself amenable to the byelaw of the Community. The plaintiff has failed to prove irreparable injury caused due to the non cooperation adoptod-by the Committee. In the aforesaid circumstances, the suit is to be dismissed. 6. Without disclosing the dismissal of the suit, after a gap of almost one year and four months, petition was preferred before the Kerala Human Rights Commission. Forum hunting at the behest of the litigant has always been deprecated by Courts exercising the plenary as well as extraordinary jurisdiction. It is settled law that the person who approaches this Court with uncleaned hands can be driven out at any stage. On perusal of the contents of the petition preferred before the Kerala Human Rights Commission, there is not a single whisper of dismissal of the civil suit. Petitioner committee raised serious objection in the reply as well as matter was argued, but the Kerala Human Rights Commission sat in exercising the power as if it was entertaining the appeal provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an ``` WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016 ``` ## **`10`** action in my view is wholly erroneous, perverse, capricious, and repugnant. The Kerala Human Rights Commission has no role for overriding the decree of the court which is valid till it is satisfied. For the reasons aforementioned the order of the Human Rights Commission is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. These writ petitions stand allowed. **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak ## **`WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016`** ## **`11`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28038/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE DATED 01.04.2003 OF THE PETTAH SREE MUTHARAMMAN COIL` - `EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 11.11.2011 TAKEN BY THE GENERAL BODY OF THE PETTAH SREE MUTHARAMMAN COIL PLAKA (BRANCH) OF THE COMMUNITY IS VANIKA VAISYA COMMUNITY` - `EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1935/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIF (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OS NO.1935/2011` - `EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 27.11.2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OS NO.1935/2011` - `EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HRMP NO.3155/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO EXT.P7 COMPLAINT` - `EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2016 IN HRMP NO.3155/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` ## **`WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016`** ## **`12`** ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBIT ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(A) ``` - `COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DAED 22-122014 SENT BY ME TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT R2(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-10-2015 EXHIBIT R2(C) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9-12-2015` - `EXHIBIT R2(D) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT R2(E) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8-8-2016 SENT BY ME TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT R2(F) COPY OF THE CHEQUE BY NO.144193 DRAWN ON SBT PETTAH BRANCH` - `EXHIBIT R2(G) COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS BY ARL013537858IN` - `EXHIBIT R2(H) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD` - `EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD` - `EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.09.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPYOF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P8` ## **`WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016`** ## **`13`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31414/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S ASSOCIATION` - `EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD` - `EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/9/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 11/11/2011 OF THE PETITIONER'S ASSOCIATION` - `EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 1935/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `EXHIBIT-P6 JUDGMENT DATED 27/11/2014 IN OS NO. 1935/2011 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS FOR THE OFFERINGS MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28/3/2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT. P8` ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/7/2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONENT ``` ## **`WP(C)NOs.31414/2016 & 28038/2016`** ## **`14`** ## `RESPONDENT EXHIBIT` ``` EXHIBIT R3(A)COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-10-2015 ``` - `EXHIBIT R3(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9-12-2015` ``` EXHIBIT R3(C)COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ``` - `EXHIBIT R3(D) COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.07.2016` - `EXHIBIT R3(E) COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25-07-2016 SENT BY ME TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT R3(F) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8-8-2016 SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER` - `EXHIBIT R3(G) COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.144193 DATED 9-82016 DRAWN ON SBT, PETTAH BRANCH` - `EXHIBIT R3(H) COPY OF THE REGISTRATIION PARTIULARS BY ARL013537858IN` - `EXHIBIT R3(I) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD`