Nandakumar V. @ Kumar vs State Of Kerala

Anu Sivaraman, J

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner to attend the day to day activities in and administration of Sree Ujjainy Mahakali Amman Kovil without any obstruction from the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and men under them;

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ direction or orders commanding the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner or to interfere with his rights to attend the day to day activities in and administration of Sree Ujjainy Mahakali Amman Kovil, Alappuzha.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Treasurer of the Managing Committee of a private Temple which belongs to his family. It is submitted that respondents 4 and 5 had formed a Trust and had also filed O.S No.21 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. In the I.A filed in the said suit, an order of ex parte ad-interim injunction had been issued against the petitioner which was later vacated by Ext.P1 order dated 08.10.2021 after considering all the contentions. It is submitted that no appeal had been preferred against Ext.P1 by respondents 4 and 5 and resultantly Ext.P1 is in force. It is submitted that even thereafter, the petitioner is being prevented by respondents 4 and 5 for entering the Temple and carrying out the worship and that on 27.10.2021, respondents 4 and 5 had manhandled the petitioner as a result of which he suffered injuries as evidenced by Ext.P2 wound certificate and an FIR had also been registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are also not permitting the petitioner to enter into the Temple or take part in the day to day administration of the Temple.

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 4 and 5 wherein it is contended that though the petitioner belongs to the family which owns the Temple, he is not the Treasurer of the Managing Committee of the Temple. It is further submitted that the respondents 4 and 5 had not manhandled the petitioner and that the FIR was registered on the basis of the private complaint made by the petitioner only to harass respondents 4 and 5. It is contended that the petitioner was never prevented from worshiping the deity and respondents 4 and 5 have not caused any threat to his life. They had only interfered with the troublesome behaviour of the petitioner after consuming intoxicating liquor since he prevented the devotees from peaceful worship of the deity. It is submitted that without any authority entrusted by the Managing Committee of the Trust, the petitioner had been taking underhand action to interfere in the administration of the Temple.

The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that there is a civil dispute with regard to the conduct of the administration of the Temple between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and that the police are in no way interfering with the civil dispute. It is contended that there is no attempt to prevent the petitioner from entering the Temple or from conducting the affairs of the same.

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the petitioner contends to be a member of the family which owns the Temple and the Treasurer of the Managing Committee. Respondents have admittedly filed a suit against the petitioner seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner from conducting the affairs of the Temple. It is in the said suit that Ext.P1 order has been passed by the learned Munsiff vacating the ex parte ad interim order of injunction which had been granted earlier. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also there is no whisper as to any appeal preferred as against Ext.P1 or any interdictory orders on the same.

In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the question with regard to the rights to conduct the affairs of the Temple is to be decided in the suit already filed or in appropriate proceedings and that the police or respondents 4 and 5 cannot seek to take a decision with regard to the right of the petitioner to conduct the affairs of the Temple. There will, accordingly, be a direction that in case the petitioner faces any threat or obstruction from respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer who shall afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and permit him to enter the Temple. The respondents 2 and 3 shall also not involve themselves in the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. Law and order shall also be maintained in the vicinity of the Temple. All other questions are left open to be decided in the suit pending between the parties or in other appropriate proceedings.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.