A.RAVEENDRANATHA MENON Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, claim to be the members of two ancient Nair families in the Peringanam area of Thrissur District. They say that the two families are the "Mangattu family" and the "Ambattu family" and that they are entitled to be the 'OOralans' of Palliyil Bhagavathy temple, Peringanam. As per their averments, the temple was being adminstered by them earlier; but that subsequently, a Samithy was incorporated for the purpose of management and that the Ooralans allowed the said Samithy to be in management of the Temple for some time. They say that however, since the Samithy was mismanaging the affairs of the temple, a suit was filed to obtain back possession of the temple, as O.S.No.158 of 1998 on the files of the Sub Court, Iringalakkuda, which was decreed in their favour through Ext.P1.

(2.) The petitioners say that the Samithy challenged the said decree by filing A.S.No.29 of 2001 before the District Court, Thrissur, which was also dismissed through Ext.P2. According to them, the Samithy has now filed R.S.A No.56 of 2004 before this Court, which is, pending and they say that this Court has passed an interim order in the said appeal to the effect that the day today admininstration of the temple will have to be conducted as per the orders to be obtained from the Executing Court. The petitioners submit that consequent to these directions, they have approached the Civil Court for the appointment of a Receiver, which was allowed by the Executing Court. They have thereafter, filed this writ petition because, according to them, in the meanwhile Ext.P5 order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the 2nd respondent herein, appointing the 3rd respondent as a fit person to be in charge of the temple and they say that this order prejudices their civil rights and remedies, which are still pending before this Court.

(3.) We have examined Ext.P5, which is the order impugned. We notice that the 2nd respondent has appointed a fit person, finding the Samithy to be mismanaging the temple and concluding that the Temple cannot be allowed any further to be under their charge. We really do not see how the petitioners are prejudiced by this, since this order virtually validates their case that the Samithy cannot be in charge and management of the temple.