KADALAYA MANAKKAL MOORTHI NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-1974-7-34
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 22,1974

KADALAYA MANAKKAL MOORTHI NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner is the karnavan of an Illom, and is the hereditary trustee of the several devaswoms mentioned in Para.2 of the petition. Respondents Nos. 3 to 24 filed petitions invoking the provisions of S.25(2), of the Thiruppuvaram Payment (Abolition) Act, 1969 (for short, the Act). Along with these petitions they have also deposited amounts equal to arrears of thiruppuvaram due from them in respect of one year, In this manner, these respondents, seek to get full discharge of their liability for arrears of thiruppuvaram which have accrued due prior to 1-1-1970 on which date the Act came into force as per notification S. R. O. No. 12/1970 dated 1-1-1970 issued under S.1(3) of the Act, and published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 1-1-1970. The discharge sought for is as against the petitioner, in some instances in his capacity as Illom karnavan, and in others on his capacity as hereditary trustee of one or the other of the devaswoms. Petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of S.25(2) of the Act, and prays for striking down that provision as ultra vires and void. He also prays for quashing the proceedings in the several petitions filed by respondent No. 3 onwards.
(2.) By order on C. M. P. No. 3710 of 1971 the petitioner's application to implead respondents Nos. 3 to 24 in a representative capacity has been allowed. However, none has come forward to oppose this petition. Even respondents Nos. 3 to 24 have not entered appearance. The 1st respondent State has entered appearance through the learned Government counsel but has not filed any counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent is the learned Munsiff, Kottarakara, before whom the several applications under S.25(2) of the Act are pending.
(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that S.25(2) of the Act is violative of Art.19(1)(f) and Art.31 of the Constitution and that it is not protected by Art.19(5) nor by Art.31A. This is the only point that arises for consideration in this case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.