SREE CHINAKKATHOOR POORAM OTTAPALAM DESOM COMMITTEE T.B.ROAD AND ORS. Vs. COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner before us is stated to be a committee of persons and the second and third petitioners are claimed to be its President and Secretary respectively. The first petitioner committee is not a statutorily constituted committee, but is only an association of persons, who claim to be members of the Ottapalam Desom, which is one of the seven desoms entrusted with the conduct of the Pooram in connection with Sree Chinakkathoor Bhagavathi Temple, Ottapalam.

(2.) The Pooram of the temple is scheduled to be held on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of March, 2018. The six other desoms, entrusted with the conduct of the Pooram, have already had their representatives elected and approved by the competent authorities. However, as regards Ottapalam Desom, disputes have been ongoing almost every year prior to the conduct of the Pooram. In fact, when a committee was elected last year, it was challenged by the then previous committee, of which the second petitioner herein was shown to be the Secretary, by filing W.P.(C) No. 446 of 2017. That writ petition culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, wherein this Court recorded that the disputes between the warring factions have been settled amicably. However, in spite of it, we notice that, a review application was filed, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment by which this Court found that the review was not maintainable. The position has not changed this year either. The factions are still warring.

(3.) As we can see, there are at least three different groups, which have placed panels before the competent authorities for approval, each holding out themselves to be elected representatives of Ottapalam Desom Pooram Committee. The 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner, after consideration of the panels placed before him and on assessment of all the relevant factors, issued Ext.P12 order approving certain persons as the members of the Ottapalam Desom Pooram Committee for this year. Respondents 6 and 7 herein are stated to be the members of the said committee. The petitioners challenge Ext.P12 as being illegal and unlawful and they say that the 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner has approved the committee, headed by the 7th respondent, without conducting a proper election and without ascertaining the views of the members of the Ottapalam Desom Committee.