RAVIPURAM BHAJANA SANGHAM Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to enforce an alleged right acquired by uninterrupted usage for over forty years in a public temple to perform a vazhipadu (roughly translated as divine offering to the diety in a temple by a devotee). Though the prayer made in the Writ Petition does not disclose as to which temple the petitioner desires to enforce the right, but by wading through the scanty pleadings one can make out that it relates to Ravipuram Krishna Temple situate in Ernakulam, a place of worship of Hindus of all denomination, where all Hindus have a right for worship and offer vazhipadu, irrespective of caste, colour or creed. This is a temple managed and administered by the first respondent herein, a state within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner describes itself to be a registered society, consisting of members who share their view and admitted by the society as its members. The vazhipadu is proposed to be offered during the Navarathri season, believed by all Hindus to be auspicious nine days devoted for worship of Hindu Goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswathi. The petitioner seeks permission to use the oottupura (traditionally a place situate within the temple precincts earmarked for temple feasts) for its exclusive user. In short, the petitioner claims an exclusive right of occupation of the said premises, by virtue of a right acquired by user for over forty years. Before proceeding, it has to be stated that with respect to this claim, except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, there is no material whatever placed before the court to substantiate such a claim. Ext. P2 produced in this behalf only shows that such a permission was granted during the previous year but it is not in dispute that by Ext. P3 this right stood revoked. As such, there is nothing on record to claim any right having acquired by use over 42 years. That apart, it is settled law that it is not possible for an individual or to a registered body to acquire any exclusive right for worship or performing poojas in a public temple. When once the petitioner seeks permission from the first respondent, it is implied that any such use of the temple premises was only permissive and it would not enable the claimant to acquire any prescriptive right. There can be no dispute in this behalf.

(3.) But, however, since the first respondent was called upon to take notice and the second respondent got themselves impleaded to oppose the prayer, we propose to examine the case in more detail. We do not think that any of the prayers of the petitioner in the Writ Petition can be granted. The petitioner has made the following prayers: