RP No. 984 of 2014 in SSCR No. 26/2014 & RP No. 985 of 2014 in SSCR No. 28/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 RP.No. 984 of 2014 () IN SSCR.26/2014 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SSCR 26/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-11-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/(NOT PARTIES TO THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS): --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BASHEER S/O ABDUL RAHMANKUNJU, KUTTIYIL VADAKKATHIL, MEMANA OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN S/O VASU PILLAI, DEVEE VILASOM, TC 19/2135 MUDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI S/O KUTTAPPA KURUP, RAJ BHAVANAM, NJAKKANAL KRISHNAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. V.SATHEESAN S/O. VELUKKUTTY, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. RAFEEQ S/O SHAJAHAN, KOYIPPURATH VADAKKATHIL, NJAKKANAL P.O. KRISHNAPURAM KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. V.MURUKAN S/O VELUKKUTTY, VADAKODU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. N.SUGATHAN, S/O NATARAJAN, PEZHUVILA PUTHANVEEDU, VACHIKKONAM KUTTIKKAD PO, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. RAJU S/O KUTTAPAN, KUTTIKKATT VEEDU, AALUMPEEDIKA P.O. OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT IN SSCR 26 OF 2014: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695001. R2 BY SRGOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.S. MANILAL R1 BY SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2014 ALONG WITH RP. 985/2014, THE COURT ON 08-01-2015, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **R.P.No.984/2014 in SSCR No.26/2014 & R.P.No.985/2014 in SSCR No.28/2014** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8[th] day of January, 2015 ## **ORDER** ## Ramachandran Nair, J. These review petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking to review the common order passed by this Court in SSCR Nos.26 and 28 of 2014. To draw the background of the same, we proceed to record the following facts: 2. SSCR Nos.26/2014 and 28/2014 are matters relating to Mandalam Makaravilakku festival season of the year 2014-2015 of the famous Sabarimala Temple. Based on two reports submitted before this Court by the Addl. District Judge and Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, Shri K. Babu, appointed by this Court, the matters were taken on file. Therein, reference is made to the reports submitted by the Executive Magistrate under the Special Commissioner, pointing out that exorbitant prices are being charged for steel, aluminium and brass vessels at Sannidhanam and Pampa by the traders. 3. In SSCR No.26/2014, the factual report initially made is by Shri M.P. Vinod, Executive Magistrate. The crux of the report is that 2 the vendors at Sannidhanam and Pampa charge for these vessels three times more the market price prevailing at nearby District Centre at Pathanamthitta. On the basis of the information, the inspection reports of the Special Squads of Legal Metrology department constituted at Sannidhanam and Pampa were called for which confirmed the same. He requested for taking stiff measures so as to prevent exploitation of pilgrims. In SSCR No.28/2014, as per report No.76/2014, the Special Commissioner has brought to the notice of this Court that one Shri C.R. Krishnakumar, Duty Magistrate has made a request to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to fix prices of vessels by weighing the same with the aid of weighing scale and to exhibit price per kilograms in the different stalls, as exorbitant charge is made by the traders at Sabarimala. 4. When the cases came up for consideration, it was informed by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the District Collector has convened a meeting of all concerned and adopted a common yardstick by placing reliance upon the market price in Pathanamthitta District for steel, aluminium and brass and a marginal increase was given for traders at Pampa and Sannidhanam. At Pampa the price was fixed at the rate of 10% lower than the price fixed at Sannidhanam. The following chart will give the rates fixed in the meeting convened by the District 3 ## Collector: ||**_Market price in_**<br>**_Pathanamthitta in Rs./Kg._**|**_Pampa_**<br>**_Rs./Kg_**|**_Sannidhanam_**<br>**_Rs./Kg_**| |---|---|---|---| |Steel (Medium<br>quality)|320|347|385| |Aluminium|330|342|380| |Brass|700|734|815| This Court, therefore, directed the Duty Magistrates and squads to monitor the matter and to see that the vendors charge only the prices fixed in the meeting convened by the District Collector. Appropriate directions were given to enforce the same at Pampa and Sannidhanam, so as to avoid the exploitation of devotees. It was directed that the vendors should be asked to exhibit the price as shown in the chart. 5. The above common order was passed on 28.11.2014. The Special Commissioner submitted a supplementary report again by pointing out that the vendors are violating the order dated 28.11.2014 in SSCR Nos.26 and 28 of 2014. Appropriate directions were sought to prevent exploitation of pilgrims. Another Division Bench of this Court by order in SSCR NO.29/2014 dated 3.12.2014 again issued directions for the strict implementation of the order in SSCR Nos.26/2014 and 28/2014. It is thereafter these review petitions have been filed. 6. The review petitioners are traders who seek review of the common order passed in SSCR Nos.26 and 28 of 2014 mainly by 4 pointing out that the price fixation made by the District Collector did not take into account various aspects. 7. We heard learned counsel for the review petitioners Shri P. Gopinath Menon, learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board, Shri V. Krishna Menon and Shri C.S. Manilal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and the authorities as well as the District Collector. 8. Shri Gopinath Menon, learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the agreements executed between the traders and the Devaswom Board did not restrict the price of any of the items to be sold. It is submitted that the traders have entered into the agreements by quoting huge amounts and the agreements are valid for the period from 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015, viz. for one year. They have to appoint employees for conducting the shops, have borrowed huge amounts as investments and have to incur expenses for other miscellaneous items like electricity, transportation, labour, maintenance, etc. It is submitted that the stock has been bought from wholesalers in Madurai in Tamilnadu and by transporting it to Pampa after incurring huge transportation charges. It is also submitted that they will get business only for a period of 132 days by counting the Mandalam 5 Makaravilakku season and the periods during which the Temple will be opened every month for the monthly poojas as well as other occasions like Onam and Vishu. It is submitted that unless a higher rate is fixed, they will not be able to get sufficient business and it will run into loss. They have also furnished a list of prices approved by the Duty Magistrate for the year 2012-2013. It is further submitted that each vessel carries different works, by the workers and hence will have to be valued accordingly. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that even if in the agreement no specific prices have been fixed, being a pilgrim centre, the devotees cannot be subjected to exploitation. It is submitted that the traders have not spent huge money for erecting shops as they have been allotted spaces by the Board for running the shops. It is submitted that the allegation that they will not get profit is only unfounded. The Temple is visited by lakhs of pilgrims during Mandalam Makaravilakku season and even during monthly poojas thousands of pilgrims are visiting the Temple. Unlike the shops in other places, they are getting business for the entire 24 hours every day as the shops are not closed at all and they have not been subjected to any other liabilities also. 6 10. Learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that a proper procedure was undertaken by the District Collector for arriving at the price fixation. The traders were given due notices and he placed before us the files relating to the same to show that nearly 11 traders attended the meeting. They have made written submissions stating that they may be allowed to sell vessels as it was done in the previous year and based on those prices. No other objections were submitted by them and they have not suggested any price also and have not given any other data to show the wholesale price under which they purchased it, the transportation charges and other incidental expenses, if any. It is submitted that the price was fixed in the light of the fact that exploitation of pilgrims should be prevented. 11. It is therefore submitted that the duty Magistrates and the Inspectors of Legal Metrology Department have done their assigned duty so as to protect the rights of pilgrims and to prevent the traders from indulging in exploitation. 12. We have considered the rival submissions. In the counter affidavit filed in R.P.No.984/2014 by the Revenue Divisional Officer on behalf of the second respondent, various aspects have been pointed out. It is stated that on the basis of statistics, data and materials the District 7 Collector had fixed the prices for steel, aluminium and brass vessels to be sold at Pampa and Sannidhanam. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala reported before this Court that the vendors are charging more than three times the price than in the prevailing market rate from the pilgrims. In the aforesaid circumstances the District Collector intervened in the matter and a comparative statement showing market prices fixed by the Legal Metrology Department and the prices charged by the vendors at Pampa over the prices charged by the vendors at Sannidhanam were made available. It is stated that the market price of steel, aluminium and brass at Pathanamthitta were first ascertained. Accordingly, the market rate for steel per kilogram at Pathanamthitta is `320/-, that of aluminium is at `.330/- and that of brass is at ₹700/-. In paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, the following details have been furnished: “It is submitted that the market prices of Steel, Aluminium and Brass at Pathanamthitta were first ascertained. Accordingly, the market ate for steel per kilogram at Pathanamthitta is `320/-, that of aluminium is at `.330/- and that of brass is at ₹ 700/-. The rate at Pamba for steel utensils was more than 8.43% of the market rate and that of 3.63% in the case of Aluminium and 4.85% in the case of Brass. The above escalation was given in terms of percentage due to the fact that the transportation charges and other handling charges were taken into consideration. As far as the rates fixed at 8 Sannidhanam is concerned, it is almost 20.31% of the market price at Pathanamthitta and that of Aluminium is 15.15% and that of Brass is 16.42% than the market price. It is submitted that the rates were fixed on the basis of the Conference convened by the Duty Magistrate as directed by the District Collector. The petitioners were participated in the said Conference and it is after duly considering their grievances that the prices were fixed.” 13. The contention that the District Collector has no power to fix the prices legally, is also denied. It is stated that the grant of permission to the petitioners by the Board is restricted to the pilgrim season and also is for the purpose of catering to the needs of pilgrims from different walks of life. 14. We find from the report (S.M.NO.75/2014) which was considered by us while disposing of SSCR Nos.26 and 28 of 2014, that it contained a comparative statement of market price, the price fixed by the Legal Metrology Department and the price charged by the vendors for vessels at Pampa and Sannidhanam. The said statement is given below: 9 ||**_Market_**<br>**_price at_**<br>**_Pathanam-_**<br>**_thitta in_**<br>**_Rs./Kg._**|**_Price fixed_**<br>**_by Legal_**<br>**_Metrology_**<br>**_Dept. for_**<br>**_Pampa_**|**_Price fixed by_**<br>**_Legal_**<br>**_Metrology_**<br>**_Dept. for_**<br>**_Sannidhanam_**|**_Average_**<br>**_price now_**<br>**_charged_**<br>**_by the_**<br>**_vendors_**<br>**_at Pampa_**|**_Average_**<br>**_price now_**<br>**_charged by_**<br>**_the vendors_**<br>**_at_**<br>**_Sannidhana_**<br>**_m Rs./Kg_**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |Steel<br>(Medium<br>quality)|320|360|400|790|1200| |Aluminium|330|370|396|736|1200| |Brass|700||840||2000| It is clear that the vendors were charging three times than the market price of vessels. Definitely, it will result in huge exploitation of pilgrims. 15. The Special Commissioner has been appointed by this Court to co-ordinate various aspects concerning the pilgrimage to Sabarimala. The Government has been conferring powers on various Executive Magistrates also during this festival season every year. Apart from the same, the Special Squads of Legal Metrology Department, Food Safety Department, etc. have been in action to prevent exploitation of pilgrims at various fronts. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government officers and the Department cannot have any power in the matter, we cannot agree. 16. As far as the shops in question are concerned, they are situated in Pampa and Sabarimala, viz. the important pilgrim centres. Pampa is 10 enroute to Sabarimala. It is not in dispute that the vessels are meant for sale only to pilgrims and the shops are not situated in places where normal public will be accessing. The centres are festival places alone. Unlike normal businesses in the shops situated in other places, herein the shops are open for 24 hours a day. It is not as if they are getting business only for a restricted period on any day. Unlike a limited number of customers approaching a normal shop in a market or other places for purchase of utensils in a single day, herein the pilgrims are in large numbers visiting the Temple every day and those who require the vessels, will be accessing the shops at all times 17. Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that some of the petitioners are doing business continuously for different years and their plea that they are depending upon other financial sources for doing business is not correct. In R.P.No.984/2014 it is pointed out in paragraph 2 that the first petitioner has been allotted the stall (9 mts. X 6 mts.) for the quoted price of `1,02,50,000/-. It is not as if the petitioners are strangers to the area and are not aware about the system. Even going by their contentions, they are relying upon a list Annexure I said to have been prepared by the duty Magistrate himself for the year 2012-2013. They pray to this Court to approve the same for enabling them to sell 11 the utensils at such prices. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board and learned Senior Government Pleader that it was not prepared based on any relevant data or price. Since the period 20122013 is over, we will not be justified in placing any reliance on the said document, viz. Annexure I. 18. The welfare of large number of pilgrims is a matter for consideration by the Government and the Board. The fate of pilgrims cannot be left to the free volition of traders. The exploitation of pilgrims will have to be prevented. Their rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India will have to get paramount consideration. Even if it is true that in the agreements the price for each vessel is not fixed, we cannot straight away allow the traders to have a free run so as to charge any amount for vessels sold at Pampa and Sabarimala unmindful of the real price in open market. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no authority can fix the price, being not an essential article. We cannot agree. Unlike a market place, herein it is an all important pilgrim centre visited by lakhs and lakhs of pilgrims from various states during festival seasons. Their welfare and interest will have to be well protected by the arms of the Government and the Board which is managing the Temple. The jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is not limited at 12 all. Even from earlier times religious and charitable institutions in India were subjected to supervision by ruling authorities from time to time. A Full Bench of this Court in **Achuthan Pillai and others v. State of Kerala and others** (1970 KLT 838), in paragraph 5 in another context expressed the view that “the rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management.” If we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the agreement alone should govern, then we will be shutting our eyes to the non exercise of adequate power by the Board in not providing any guidelines to the traders. Such lapses, if we recognise, the result will be to subject the pilgrims and devotees to unrestricted exploitation by traders, which was highlighted in the report of the Special Commissioner. The larger interest of the devotees, viz. public interest will have to be recognised by this Court and therefore we are of the view that the fixation of price by the District Collector cannot be said to be unlawful for any reason, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The distinction from other traders who have fixed place of business, viz. shops either owned by them or taken on rent in markets and other places, will have to be born in mind. Herein, only make shift arrangements are made in the space allotted by the Board and 13 the stalls or areas allotted are under the control of the Board also. 19. Even going by the price fixed by the District collector, we find from the records that the price as now fixed is after considering the grievances of the vendors also. In fact, the traders had no other suggestion to be made except that they want permission to have the price of vessels as provided in Annexure I. It is clear from the report placed before us by the learned Senior Government Pleader recording the details of the meeting dated 27.11.2014 which was held as directed by the District Collector in Sabarimala Devaswom Conference Hall with Duty Magistrate, Shri V. Ramachandran in the Chair, that after considering the stand of the traders that they will incur loss, 5% more increase in the market price was made to have the fixed price (i.e. In total 15% more). The prices at Pampa and at Sannidhanam are fixed differently from those available in Pathanamthitta. 20. In fact, the price at Pathanamthitta is actually the retail price of the vessels. Even going by the case of the review petitioners, they have purchased the articles from wholesalers and not from retailers. They have not indicated in the review petitions what was the actual price under which they have purchased it from Madurai in Tamil Nadu. Definitely it will be far less than the retail price at Pathanamthitta. 14 21. We are therefore of the view that the review petitioners have not made out any case for reviewing the matter. Learned counsel for the review petitioners lastly prayed that the matter may be sent back to the District Collector for a fresh consideration. We are of the view that no material has been placed before us warranting acceptance of such a suggestion except the assertion by the review petitioners. There is no apparent error in the orders passed by this Court and accordingly the review petitions are dismissed. No costs. ## **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)** ## **(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)** kav/