Petitioner is one of the applicant for appointment as non- hereditary trustee of Sree Manapully Bhagavathy Devaswom, Palakkad. One of the stipulation in the notice for inviting application for appointment of non hereditary trustee is that the applicant shall not be in active politics and office bearer of a political party. Petitioner's case is that respondents 6 and 8 are office bearers and active members of political parties and they have been appointed overlooking the disqualification in the notice. It is challenging their appointment, this Writ Petition is filed.
2. Petitioner relies on Exts.P4 and P5 and submits that respondents 6 and 8 are active members of a political party. Petitioner also along with the reply affidavit produced Exts.P6 and P7, affidavits alleged to have been sworn by the respondents 6 and 8 while applying for the post. It is submitted that the 6th respondent is the office Secretary of Congress(I) of the District Committee and 8th respondent is the President of the Vennakkara Ward Committee. Petitioner's case is that they have suppressed these facts in the affidavit sworn before the authorities while applying for the post.
3. In this matter, a statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. It is stated that respondents 6 and 7 submitted affidavit that they are not involved in active politics, criminal case and case against Devaswom Board. Respondent No.8 submitted affidavit that he is not involved in criminal case and case against Devaswom Board. Thereafter perusing the enquiry report of the Inspector, the appointees having no disqualification, they were appointed. Respondent Nos.6 and 8 have also filed counter affidavit. It is admitted that 6th respondent is the office Secretary of Congress(I), he is a paid employee and he is not an active member of political party. Respondent No.8 in the counter affidavit stated that he is not an active politician as alleged above and not he is the President of Vennakkara Ward Committee. However, it is admitted that the 8th respondent owes allegiance to Congress(I) party and takes part in its meetings, as a person owing such allegiance. His house is also used for conducting meetings. Photograph produced along with the Writ Petition is only in respect of one meeting held in his house. It is submitted that affidavit on behalf of them are true and correct as they are not active political worker.
4. The question is whether the appointment is vitiated by suppression of material facts. If the respondents 6 and 8 are active members of the political party, necessarily it would vitiate the appointment. Petitioner relies on certain materials to establish her case. The 6th respondent has a case that he is only a paid employee of the District Office (Congress I).
5. I am of the view, in such circumstances, fact finding is necessary to establish the case against respondents 6 and 8. Therefore, the second respondent shall conduct a fact finding enquiry after adverting to materials placed by the petitioner and hearing the petitioner and respondents 6 and 8. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question being related to alleged fraud committed by the appointees, authorities always have the jurisdiction to decide whether a fraud has been committed or not. Therefore, it is not necessary to relegate the petitioner to Government under Sec.99 by filing revision. That would arise only when a decision is taken by the Commissioner on merit. Necessary decision shall be rendered within the above outer limit after hearing both sides. Both parties are directed to produce necessary materials.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
Sbna/06/12/14 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.