BY AD v. S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945 RP NO. 887 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2023 IN WP(C) 25153/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/NOT PARTIES: 1 2 3 4 NSS KARAYOGAM NO.98 NADUVATTOM (PO) NADUVATTOM (PO), PALLIPADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 512 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT GOPINATHAN NAIR P.K, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS RESIDING AT VELUMPARAMBIL VEEDU, NADUVATTOM P.O., PALLIPPADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690512. NSS KARAYOGAM NO.113 KOTTAKKAKAM KOTTAKKAKAM, MUTTOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 511 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT M.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS RESIDING AT MULLASSERIL VADAKKATHIL, KOTTAKKAKAM, MUTTOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690511. NSS KARAYOGAM NO.109 THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKE PALLIPAD (PO) ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690 512 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MOHAN ATTUPURAM, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTUPURATH VEEDU, THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKE, PALLIPAD (PO) ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690512. NSS KARAYOGAM NO.112 THEKKUMURI MUTTAM (PO), PALLIPAD ALAPPUZHA PIN - 690 511 Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 4 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. SOMASEKHARA KURUP, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREE BHAVANAM, MUTTAM (PO), PALLIPAD ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690511. BY ADVS. SRI T KRISHNAN UNNI (SR) BINOY VASUDEVAN SREEJITH SREENATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RAJANEESH KUMAR.R AGED 36 YEARS, KALAVILA THEKKETHIL, THEKKUMURI, KALAVILA THEKKETHIL, THEKKUMURI, MUTTOM (PO), PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN – 690511. VISHNU.V KOCHUKULANGARKKAL VEEDU, THEKKUMURI, MUTTOM (PO), PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 690511 THEKKUMURI BHARANI THIRUNAL HAINDAVA KARAYOGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECERTARY RANJEEV K.R, REG.NO.39/4/2018, THEKKUMURI, MUTTOM (PO), PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690511. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695003. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN – 695003. THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, HARIPAD (PO), ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690514. SREE DEVI BHUVANESWARI (DEITY MINOR) MANAKKAD DEVASWOM Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MUTTOM (PO), PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND PRESIDENT, MANAKKATTU DEVASWOM BHARANA SAMITHI, PIN – 690511. THE MANAKKAD DEVASWOM BHARANA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANAKKAD DEVI TEMPLE, MUTTOM (PO), PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690511. DILIP KUMAR.R (FORMER PRESIDENT, MANAKKATTU DEVASWOM BHARANA SAMITHI), S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, THARA BHAVAN, THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKU PALLIPADU HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690511. VARUN C. NAIR (FORMER SECRETARY, MANAKKATTU DEVASWOM BHARANA SAMITHI), S/O.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, BARATHI KESAVAM, THEKKUMURI, MUTTOM (PO), PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690511. REGHUNATH.N AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE S.NARAYANAN, NOW RESIDING AT KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, HARIPPAD, PIN – 690511. SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.SOMASEKHARA KURUP, KAIPPELLATHU, CHENANKARA HOUSE, MUTTOM (PO), HARIPPAD, PIN – 690511. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI S/O.RABGAVA KURUP, AGED 63 YEARS, CHOONATTUVILAYIL, NADUVATTOM (PO), PALLIPPAD, KARTHIKAPALY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690512. AJITH KUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, MANIMANDIRAM, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690512. Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 6 R1 TO R3 BY ADV S.KRISHNAMOORTHY R4 TO R6 BY SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC FOR TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. R7 & R8 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R7 & R8 BY K.JOHN MATHAI R7 & R8 BY JOSON MANAVALAN R7 & R8 BY KURYAN THOMAS R7 & R8 BY PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R7 & R8 BY RAJA KANNAN R11 & R12 BY SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND R13 BY SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R13 BY P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R13 BY SABU GEORGE R13 BY MANU VYASAN PETER OTHER PRESENT: SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2024, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1444/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 7 JUDGMENT/ORDER P.G. Ajithkumar, J. W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 was allowed as per the judgment dated 05.01.2023. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition, Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TCHRI Act) in respect of Sree Devi Bhuvaneswari of Manakkattu Devi Temple and to take a decision whether or not the Temple has to be assumed as provided in Section 37 of the TCHRI Act. The petitioners were not parties to the writ petition. They filed this review petition along with I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking leave to file a review petition. Leave was granted as per the order dated 18.08.2023.

2. The petitioner No.3 in the writ petition has filed the Contempt Case alleging that the respondent-Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board failed to comply with the direction in the judgment dated 05.01.2023 to conclude the enquiry as ordered therein within a period of four months from the date of that judgment. Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 8

3. The respondents in the review petition entered appearance through their respective counsel. The respondent in the contempt case entered appearance through the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and filed an affidavit producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(c).

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the review petition, respective learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the contempt case and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

5. The writ petition was filed by three persons claiming to be devotees of Sree Devi Bhuvaneswari of Manakkattu Devi Temple, Pallipad. Their contentions were that the said Temple is a religious endowment as defined in Section 2(b) of the TCHRI Act and there were mismanagement entailing the Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct an enquiry as contemplated in Section 38 of the TCHRI Act in order to decide whether the Board has to Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 9 assume the management of the Temple. Finding that, there is substance in said contentions, as per the judgment dated

05.01.2023, this Court allowed the writ petition and ordered as follows:- “..... the 2nd respondent–Commissioner is directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Act and take appropriate follow up action. Needless to say that the enquiry shall be conducted with notice to the petitioners and all the affected persons. The enquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of getting a certified copy of this judgment.”

6. The petitioners seek to review the judgment on many grounds: the petitioners, four N.S.S. Karayogams in the area claimed to be the entities administering the Temple, but they were not impleaded in the writ petition; the Temple is a private temple and therefore no enquiry by the Travancore Devaswom Board could be ordered; the alleged mismanagement was during the period from 01.12.2013 to

31.12.2016, which were already remedied; remedy for the grievances alleged in the writ petition is invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore the provisions of TCHRI Act do not have Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 10 any application insofar as the Temple in question is concerned; this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not have enquired into the allegations set forth in the writ petition; the allegations of alienation of property are incorrect; and the findings based on which the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to conduct an enquiry are incorrect even prima facie.

7. The learned Senior Counsel would submit on behalf of the petitioners that when the petitioners are the entities in the helm of affairs of the Temple, which is purely a private Temple, the court should not have entertained the writ petition. Since the actual parties, who were to be heard, had not been impleaded, that becomes an apparent error on the face of the record and the judgment in question is wrong. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in that regard is that the administration of the Temple is carried out by the 5th respondent Samithi herein and when the said Samithi was in the party array, the contention of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It is further submitted that the Samithi is constituted by the Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 11 representatives of the petitioners-Karayogam and therefore the Samithi is the proper party to the writ petition. Besides, the Deity was also a party and therefore the aforesaid ground is not a sound one necessitating review of the judgment.

8. As per the judgment in the writ petition, an enquiry as contemplated in Section 38 of the TCHRI Act was ordered. It is not necessary that mismanagement of the Temple affairs is established before ordering such an enquiry. Proven mismanagement is a condition precedent for assumption under Section 37 of the TCHRI Act. The enquiry as envisaged under Section 38 of the TCHRI Act is for the ascertainment of such mismanagement, if any. Going by the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, an enquiry shall be conducted in the presence of the parties interested in such enquiry or their authorised agents. It conveys the intention of the Legislature that hearing of the interested parties is a necessary requirement during enquiry. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the judgment of this Court in the writ petition directing enquiry as per Section 38 of the TCHRI Act is not incorrect for want of hearing of the petitioners or any other person. In the light of the provisions of Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 12 Section 38 of the TCHRI Act, we are, however, of the opinion that there shall be a direction to the 5th respondent-Devaswom Commissioner to hear the petitioners herein also before submission of the final report under Section 38 of the TCHRI Act and also before taking a decision under Section 37 of the TCHRI Act.

9. The other grounds urged in the review petition, which are mentioned hereinbefore also do not arise in this case inasmuch as the findings in the judgment in the writ petition were only for the purpose of deciding whether or not an enquiry under Section 38 of the TCHRI Act to be conducted. Whether there was mismanagement, illegal alienation of property, etc. are matters requiring enquiry by the 6th respondent-Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, who was deputed to hold the enquiry. Therefore, the said grounds are also not available for a review in this case. Certainly, in the enquiry the petitioners will get opportunity to present their case and make their submissions. It, however, presupposes that they should cooperate with the enquiry being conducted by the 6th respondent. Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 13

10. The contempt case was filed alleging that the Devaswom Commissioner failed to comply with the direction that enquiry should be completed within a period of four months from the date of the judgment i.e., 05.01.2023. In the affidavit, the respondent-Devaswom Commissioner asserted that immediately after the judgment, the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Haripad was deputed to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit his report. He accordingly submitted a report on 26.05.2022. Ext.R1(a) is the report. Apparently, this is not a final report. It is obvious that the enquiry is not complete and a final report is yet be submitted. The reasons stated therein that more materials are to be collected and an enquiry at the instance of the Vigilance Commissioner is required in order to conclude the enquiry as provided under Section 38 of the TCHRI Act is appeared bona fide submission. We are directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the review petition to afford opportunity to the petitioners therein also before completing the enquiry. In view of that, it is only appropriate to afford more time to complete the enquiry. Therefore, the contempt proceedings Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 14 are not liable to be initiated against the Devaswom Commissioner at present.

11. Accordingly the revision petition is disposed of and the contempt case is closed as follows: i) the enquiry as directed in the judgment dated 05.01.2023 shall be completed within three months from today; ii) the petitioners in the review petition shall also be given an opportunity of being heard before submission of the final report by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Haripad and also before taking a decision on the report by the Travancore Devaswom Board; and iii) the contempt case is closed in the wake of extension of time for completion of the enquiry. It is made clear that the observations in the judgment dated 05.01.2023 are made for the purpose of disposal of the said writ petition alone. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 15 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1444/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 ANNEXURE A2 ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.25153/2021DATED 5.1.2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/5/2023 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26/5/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE DY. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-R1(A) ANNEXURE-R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, HARIPPAD. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26/06/2023 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. ANNEXURE-R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD DECISION DATED 19/07/2023. Cont.Case (C) No.1444 of 2023 & Review Petition No.887 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2021 16 APPENDIX OF RP 887/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A1(a) Annexure A2 Annexure A3 Annexure A4 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.90 OF 1948 DATED 13-02-1948 OF S.R.O.KARTHIKAPALLY TYPED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.90 OF 1948 OF S.R.O.KARTHIKAPALLY 13-02-1948 DATED TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.226/2022 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- II, HARIPPAD TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO.4536 OF PALLIPAD VILLAGE IN KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK