KUNNATH VASUMATHI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are stated to be members of the Kunnath Tarward in Kadalundi, Kozhikode District, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the prayers in Ext.P2 application dtd. 3/4/2018 submitted by the 7th respondent and Ext.P3 application submitted by the 8th respondent and others, numbered as O.A.No.3 of 2019 and pending before the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner, are not maintainable in law in the light of the law laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Thiruvachira SKP Committee v. Commissioner, HRC Endowments [1999 (2) KLT 590] and subsequently by the Division Bench in Gopinathan v. Raman [2004 (2) KLT 511] and Gangadharan Nair v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2013 (3) KLT 1017]. The petitioners have also sought for a writ or order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed with O.A.No.3 of 2019 or any other prayers relatable to the provisions contained in Ss. 57, 58 and 61 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 in respect of Pediyattu Bhagavati Kavu Devaswom, unless and until the dispute on title left open by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment dtd. 15/1/2015 in L.A.A.No.448 of 2007 is resolved finally; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the provisions contained in Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is strictly followed in the light of the specific provision contained in Sec. 95 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951; a writ or order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere in any manner in the affairs of Pediyattu Bhagavati Kavu Devaswom during the pendency of this writ petition; to set aside Ext.P8 order dtd. 17/2/2022 in I.A.No.24 of 2021 in O.A.No.3 of 2019 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner and allow Ext.P7 application filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment as parties to O.A.No.3 of 2019 pending before the said respondent and; an ad interim order of stay of all further proceedings in Exts.P2 and P3 applications filed by respondents 7 and 8, which is numbered as O.A.No.3 of 2019.

(2.) In Alikutty and another v. State of Kerala [ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 364] a Division Bench of this Court held that, while citing decisions in a judgment, the names of parties should also be given. In the said decision, the Division Bench followed the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Council v. Joseph [AIR 1963 SC 1561].

(3.) The principle laid down in Alikutty (supra) would apply with equal force while citing decisions in all petitions, affidavits, memorandum of appeal and other proceedings presented before this Court. Therefore, while citing decisions in writ petitions, appeals, revisions, counter affidavits, reply affidavits, etc., presented before this Court, the names of parties should also be given, along with citation.