The petitioner is the seniormost member and therefore the 'Valiyaraja of Chirakkal Kovilakam' from 2007 onwards. Malikhana or Royal pension was being distributed to the eldest member of 'Chirakkal Kovilakam' as per the covenant and his predecessor Pooruruttathi C.K Keralavarma Valiya Raja had received the same till his death on 24.10.2007. Thereafter, the rights exercised by his predecessor was derived upon the petitioner and that the said claim is supported by Ext.P1 report filed by the Village Officer after conducting enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the pension after the death of his predecessor Pooruruttathi C.K Keralavarma Valiya Raja.
2. Immediately after the demise of Pooruruttathi C.K Keralavarma Valiya Raja, the petitioner made Ext.P2 application to the 2nd Respondent regarding his entitlement for Malikhana pension. Thereafter, Ext.P3 reminder was sent for the same purpose. Since there was no response from the 2nd Respondent, again, he had sent Ext.P4 representation dated 16.12.2010. Consequent on Exts.P2 to P4, the matter has been forwarded to the Tahsildar, Kannur for enquiry and reporting and the proceedings were intimated to the petitioner by Ext.P5. That apart, the petitioner had made Ext.P6 representation to the Chief Minister of Kerala also and the said representation was forwarded to the 2nd Respondent for appropriate action. However, despite of the said proceedings, nothing fruitful has happened so far. This is the averments in this writ petition. On the basis of the averments stated above, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to disburse Malikhana pension due to the petitioner without delay.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that he has not received any instructions, despite the proper communication issued to the 2nd Respondent seeking his instructions.
4. Obviously, it is discernible from the pleadings of the petitioner that the Respondents have not considered his grievance, in spite of his earnest attempts to bring his grievance to the notice of Authorities. It was for the Respondents to take a decision on his representation. Ext.P2 representation is dated 03-11-2007 and seven years had been elapsed. I am of the opinion that the inordinate delay to consider the representation is not justifiable, at any rate.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the 2nd Respondent to consider Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P8 representations, after affording an opportunity of being heard.
6. Having regard to the nature of the grievances averred in this writ petition and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with adequate and proper directions to the Respondents.
7. Consequently, the 2nd Respondent is directed to take up Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P8 representations and take a decision on the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner is further directed to produce a copy of this judgment with additional documents, if any, before the 2nd Respondent at the earliest.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, JUDGE //true copy// P.S. To Judge St/-