PRASAD KUMAR C.N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is not the first time the petitioner has approached this Court for police protection. This Writ Petition is filed to ventilate the same grievance which was made earlier and which was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner, C.N.Prasad Kumar, is a member of Chirakkara Illam, Kanakkari. As per the registered deed No.33 of 1950, SRO, Kaduthuruthy, executed between NSS Karayogam on the one hand and the Ooralans of the temple on the other, certain stipulations were made with respect to the management and administration of Sreekrishna Swamy Temple, Kanakkari. The management and administration of the temple vests in a Board. The Board consists of members of NSS Karayogam, Kanakkari as well as the members of Ooralan Illams. Disputes arose between the NSS Karayogam and the members of Ooralan Illams. O.S.No.30 of 2016, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor, was filed by C.N.Prasad Kumar (Writ Petitioner) against NSS Karayogam, Kanakkari represented by its President and Secretary and four others for a declaration that Prasad Kumar is the Melsanthi of the temple and for an injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from obstructing Prasad Kumar from conducting poojas and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from removing him from the office. In O.S.No.30 of 2016, I.A.No.301 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from conducting poojas or from removing the plaintiff (Prasad Kumar) from the office or forcibly taking the keys of the temple. As per the order dated 30.3.2016 in I.A.No.301 of 2016, the ad interim order of injunction granted earlier was modified and it was held that the ad interim order "will not be a bar to the Devaswom Board of the plaint schedule property to take appropriate decisions regarding the administration of the temple and the plaint schedule property including the election, appointment and removal of its office bearers and the priest or any such person related to the affairs of the temple and the plaint schedule property and also regarding the possession and custody of the movable and articles related thereto". The trial court held that the question whether the plaintiff (Prasad Kumar) has a right to continue as the President of the Board or as the priest is a matter to be ultimately decided at the final stage of the suit. It was also held that the powers and functions of the Board cannot be curtailed by an interim order of the court.

(3.) Thereafter, the Board passed Exhibit R9(a) resolution dated 5.4.2016 holding that the Writ Petitioner Prasad Kumar has no right to continue in the office as a Melsanthi and he cannot be in management and administration of the temple affairs. Challenging Exhibit R9(a) resolution of the Board, the petitioner filed O.S.No.97 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Ettumanoor. That suit is pending.