LAWS(KER)-2009-11-80

PRABHAKARAN P R Vs. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE

Decided On November 05, 2009
PRABHAKARAN P. R. Appellant
V/S
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the President of the Kerala Kshetra Samrakhshna Samithy, Thrissur District, the main object of which is to protect the Hindu temples and work for its development. THE Writ Petition is filed based on a paper report in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 21 st September, 2008 from which the petitioner learnt that in principle, the Guruvayoor Devaswom has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.One crore to the Municipality for cleaning/sanitation of the Guruvayoor Municipality. Ext. P1 is the paper cutting showing the said news items. It was also reported that crores of pilgrims were coming to the Municipality and that the Devaswom is not taking any action in the matter of cleanliness/sanitation. Yet another item of news appeared in the newspaper was that the first respondent had decided to give two times food to the Ayyappa devotees coming to Guruvayoor and the Chairman has expressed the difficulties to serve food to the devotees in places other than Guruvayoor. Ext. P2 is the news item dated 18/10/2008. It is stated that by Ext. P2, the first respondent finally decided to serve food to the devotees in places other than Guruvayoor as well. Ext. P3 is the representation by the Kshetra Samrakshna Samithy and Ext. P4 is the resolution by the petitioner- Samithy against such move.

(2.) THE prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents 1,2 and 4 not to divert any amount from the Devaswom Fund in the name of food feeding to the Ayyappa devotees in any other places than Guruvayoor. THE second prayer is for a direction to desist them from granting any amount to the third respondent/Municipality in the name of expenses for sanitation.

(3.) SINCE the very Writ Petition is moved, based on the paper reports, it cannot be accepted by any Court as piece of evidence in the matter and in view of the counter-affidavit, we find that no ground is substantiated for issuing any direction as prayed for in prayer No. 2, hence the same is rejected.