V RAMAN EMBRAN Vs. TAHSILDARKANAYANNOR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition relates to the right to perform Santhi in two temples, the management of which had been assumed by the erstwhile Cochin State by royal proclamation, and is now vested in the second respondent, the State of Kerala. It is not in dispute, that the right to perform Santhi in the temples, is restricted to members of the Malayali and Tulu Brahamin communities. The right for the year which commenced on the 1st Vrichigom, 1135 M. E. was put up in auction, when the petitioner was the bidder, at a sum of Rs. 600/-. This auction was not confirmed by the District Collector and therefore it fell through. The first respondent, the Tahsildar, then issued a proclamation Ext. P3, for a reauction of the right. This was held on the 19th November, 1959, at which the third respondent, the Haindava Seva Sanghom, represented by its Secretary, was the bidder, the amount of the bid being Rs.2,001/-. There was no specification in Ext. P3, that the right was restricted to members of the two communities aforesaid. The point now taken before me on behalf of the petitioner is, that the third respondent, an institution, is not entitled to perform Santhi in the temples, and that the acceptance of its bid at the auction, amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art.26 (a) of the Constitution, to see that the religious institution is managed according to the established usages and custom pertaining to it. In the affidavit of the petitioner, it is not claimed, that the right to participate in the auction itself, is confined to members of the two communities as distinguished from the right to perform the Santhi. Although there is no stipulation in Ext. P-3 about the limitation on the right to perform the Santhi, and its preamble declared that this right was being put up in auction, Clause.8 of Ext. P-3 stated, that the further particulars concerning the exercise of that right can be obtained from the Office. This virtually meant that the auction itself was subject to such particulars, and accordingly, on the same date, the third respondent gave an undertaking in writing that the Santhi would be performed only by Brahmins, according to established usages & custom. I therefore consider, that the right of the petitioner under Art.26 (a) of the Constitution has been sufficiently guaranteed and maintained, and that no infringement of the petitioners right under it, can be posited. The third respondent, who is represented by counsel, does not claim, that it has any right under the auction to have the Santhi performed through anyone, who is not a Malayali Brahmin or a Tulu Brahmin. I therefore hold, that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. This petition is therefore dismissed with costs, one set only.