APPUKUTTAN ACHARI Vs. SREE MULAMKADAKAM DEVI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in I.A.No.1314/2009 in O.S.No.97 of 1099 M.E on the file of the I Additional District Court, Kollam. The appeal is directed against the order dated 14.6.2010 in the said I.A. The appeal is limited against the order to the extent it rejects the prayer sought for to remove respondents 2 to 5 and entrust the entire administration of the temple trust to the official receiver till a new committee assumes charge.

(2.) The matter relates to administration of Sree Mulankadakam Devi Temple. The procedure for the conduct of the election to the office bearers of the temple trust is stipulated in Ext.P1 scheme. On an earlier occasion the Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha, Kollam Taluk Union preferred W.P.(C).No.25195 of 2007 complaining about the conduct of the election held on 1.10.2006. According to the petitioner, in the said writ petition the election held on 1.10.2006 was not in accordance with the election procedure adopted in Ext.P1 scheme, which was formulated by the District Court for the administration of the said temple. The grievance was that there was no proper publication of the voters' list, that the voters' list does not contain the names of all the members, that the commissioner prepared a voters' list on the basis of the names given by the then Bharana Samithy, that the election was conducted without verification of the personal identification of the voters, that there were large number of fake voters, that the procedure stipulated in Ext.P1 scheme are flouted by the commissioner, that proper publication was not done etc. The petitioner therein filed I.A.No.1414/2006 on 6.10.2006 challenging the election to the Sree Mulankadakam Devi Temple Trust and sought to cancel the same.

(3.) The election was conducted on 1.10.2006. The period of managing committee is three years and by 30.9.2009 the period expired. This Court heard the writ petition on 18.3.2009. Finding that the period of the existing managing committee is about to expire, this Court observed that what remains is the administration for a period of few months and that in such circumstances, this Court is not examining the legality of the order passed by the court below with regard to the points raised by the petitioners in the writ petition. This Court also observed that the approach made by the court below is wrong in passing the impugned order. This Court did not interfere with the order under challenge in the writ petition finding since the period of the present committee will be over on 30.9.2009 and therefore observed that no purpose will be served by remanding the matter to pass orders afresh.