P.U.KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE situation now obtained is essentially the making of the Executive Officer of the temple concerned and the lethargic approach adopted by the State Government in disposing of a statutory revision against a decision of the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board.

(2.) NAVARATHRI was being celebrated till 2007 in the temple going by practices which are prevalent everywhere. The festival was for 9 (nine) days. In 2008; for some unascertainable wisdom that appears to have dawned on the Executive Officer, he permitted a 10th day festival called Dasami Vilakku. We are told by the counsel for MDB that the Executive Officer is an officer of MDB. He is not the Thanthri. He is not one who can decide as to what festivals have to be there in a temple and that cannot be done under the whims and fancies of officers who are appointed only to manage the affairs of a temple. Whatever that be, from 2008, a 10th day festival has been brought in. The letter of the Thanthri of the temple says that there is no thantric rites or such rituals connected with such celebration. But what has been triggered by the Executive Officer's exercise in 2008 is successive writ petitions to this Court and people getting grouped into different factions raising rival claims to conduct the 10th day festival. Ultimately, the Commissioner of MDB decided to permit that festival to continue every year. He also took the view that it would be appropriate that the 9 families or groups which conduct the festival on the 9 days be given the opportunity to compete among themselves to make a choice as to who shall conduct the 10th day festival. That stands stayed at the hands of the Government in revision. Since Navarathri and the so called Dasami Vilakku are annual events, the basic wisdom should have advised the Government to dispose of the revision fairly early so that the controversy would not continue in the next Navarathri festival season. But the revision still lies on the table of the Government with an order of stay and Navarathri festival of the current year is beginning. The stalemate continues and the different parties are before us with this writ petition.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we now see that the 4th respondent has been entrusted by the Executive Officer to conduct the festival for the 10th day. Notices have also been printed out. We have before us different choices. One is to put an end to the 10th day festival. The second would be to say that the choice has to be confined to persons who either conducted it last year or those who are to conduct the festival for the initial 9 days. The third would be to say that this cannot be given to any particular group having regard to the fact that the concept of family no more survives and thus make it open to the entire Hindu community of the locality to be brought in one canopy with some working committee to conduct it. We also take note of the fact that there is neither a hereditary trustee nor a board of trustees for the temple as of now. We do not understand why the MDB does not show any anxiety to reconstitute a board of trustees or a committee to run the affairs of the temple, though it has posted an Executive Officer there.