VIJAYAN UNNITHAN Vs. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Ombudsman for the Travancore Devaswom board submitted report No.31 of 2024 in complaint No.104 of 2022. The complaint was submitted with a grievance that the direction in the order dtd. 8/9/2015 of the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.434 of 2014 inasmuch as the implementation of Paditharam in Muralikrishna Temple, the Sub-Deity in Kunnamthanam Madathilkavu Bhagavathy Temple is yet to be implemented. The learned Ombudsman after having a due enquiry submitted the report mooting the following questions:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Amicus Curiae for the Ombudsman.

(3.) The petitioner submitted complaint No.434 of 2014 before the learned Ombudsman. In that complaint, the learned Ombudsman submitted a report dtd. 8/9/2015, wherein the matter concerning the petitioner's request to notify Paditharam in Muralikrishna Temple was relegated for the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Paragraph No.4 in that report reads as follows: