Skip to content


V. Raman Embran Vs. Tahsildar, Kanayannor Taluk and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.P. No. 1314 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Ker312
ActsConstitution of India - Article 26
AppellantV. Raman Embran
RespondentTahsildar, Kanayannor Taluk and ors.
Appellant Advocate K.K. Mathew,; N.D.P. Namburipad,; George Vadakkel,;
Respondent Advocate Govt. Pleader, for Respondents 1 and 2,; V.G. Sankara Narayana Pillai and;
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....article 26(a) of the constitution has been sufficiently guaranteed and maintained and that no infringement of the petitioner's right under it can be posited.the third respondent, who is represented bycounsel, does not claim, that it has any right underthe auction to have the 'santhi' performed throughanyone, who is not a malayati brahmin or a tulubrahmin. i therefore hold, that the petitioner hasnot made out a case for interference under article 226of the constitution. this petition is therefore dismissed with costs, one set only.
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. This petition relates to the right to perform 'Santhi' in two temples, the management of which had been assumed by the erstwhile Cochin State by royal proclamation and is now vested in the second respondent, the State of Kerala. It is not in dispute, that the right to perform 'Santhi' in the temples, is restricted to members of the Malayali and Tulu Brahmin communities. The right for the year which commenced on the 1st Vrichigom, 1185 M. E. was put up to auction, when the petitioner was the bidder, at a sum of Rs. 600/-.

This auction was not confirmed by the District Collector and therefore it fell through. The first respondent, the Tahsildar, then issued a proclamation Ext. P-3, for a reauction of the right. This washeld on the 19th November, 1959, at which the third respondent, the Haindava Seva Sanghoni, represented by its Secretary, was the bidder, the amount of the bid being Rs. 2,001/-. There was no specification in Ext. P-3, that the right was restricted to members of the two communities aforesaid.

The point now taken before me on behalf of the petitioner is, that the third respondent, an institution, is not entitled to perform 'Santhi' in the temples, and that the acceptance of its bid at the auction, amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 26(a) of the Constitution, to see that the religious institution is managed according to the established usages and custom pertaining to it.

In the affidavit of the petitioner, it is not claimed, that the right to participate in the auction itself, is confined to members of the two communities as distinguished from the right to perform the 'Santhi'. Although there is no stipulation in Ext. P-3 about the limitation on the right to perform the 'Santhi', and its preamble declared that this right was being put up in auction, clause 8 of Ext. P-3 stated, that the further particulars concerning the exercise of that right can be obtained from the Office.

This virtually meant that the auction itself was subject to such particulars, and accordingly, on the same date, the third respondent gave an undertaking in writing that the 'Santhi' would be performed only by Brahmins, according to established usages and custom. I therefore consider, that the right of the petitioner under Article 26(a) of the Constitution has been sufficiently guaranteed and maintained and that no infringement of the petitioner's right under it can be posited.

The third respondent, who is represented bycounsel, does not claim, that it has any right underthe auction to have the 'Santhi' performed throughanyone, who is not a Malayati Brahmin or a TuluBrahmin. I therefore hold, that the petitioner hasnot made out a case for interference under Article 226of the Constitution. This petition is therefore dismissed with costs, one set only.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //