CHALAD SREE DHARMASASTHA KSHETRA NAVEEKARANA v. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.25041 of 2024 Anil K. Narendran, J. 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner, namely, Chalad Sree Dharmasastha Kshetra Naveekarana Committee is constituted by Ext.P1 order dated

11.11.2022 of the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Thalassery Division, for a period of one year from

12.11.2023 or till the completion of renovation works of that temple, whichever is earlier. The term of the said Committee is extended by Ext.P2 order dated 03.01.2024 of the 3rd respondent for a further period of one year from 12.11.2023 or till the completion of the renovation works, whichever is earlier. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication dated 14.06.2024 issued by the 4th respondent Executive Officer of Chalad Sree Dharmasastha Temple, whereby the petitioner was informed that the Kshetra Naveekarana Committee cannot be permitted to conduct Ashtadravya Ganapathi Homam, which is scheduled to be conducted in the temple in Karkkidakam (August); a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to consider Ext.P8 representation dated 21.06.2024 made by W.P.(C)No.25041 of 2024 4 the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that proper auditing is conducted in Chalad Sree Dharmasastha Temple, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4, on the question of maintainability of this writ petition by the Kshetra Naveekarana Committee constituted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner.

3. The petitioner Committee is constituted as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner to undertake the renovation works of Chalad Sree Dharmasastha Temple, which is a controlled institution under the 1st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board.

4. In Arjunan T.N. v. President, Temple Advisory Committee and others [2012 (4) KHC 155] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a DBP registered on the basis of TDB Report No.39 of 2011 of the learned Ombudsman on a complaint made by the devotees of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple, which is W.P.(C)No.25041 of 2024 5 a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board relating to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of that temple, utilising the money collected from the devotees by the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple. The Tantri of the temple inaugurated the collection scheme. One Somanathan, who was dealing with the affairs of the Temple Advisory Committee, and Madhusoodhanan, registered a Trust in the name Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust and the land was purchased in the name of that Trust utilising the funds collected from the devotees. The registration of the Trust was more than two months after the collection of funds and the property was got conveyed in favour of Madhusoodhanan, Somanathan and Raveendran on behalf of that Trust. The Division Bench held that the acquisition on behalf of Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust is, obviously, in the form of a dedication to the deity of the temple concerned and such dedication has been made utilising the funds collected from the public at large, that too, by an entity acting on behalf of the people, who were prepared to make such dedication. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the Land Endowment Scheme, a conglomeration of well-minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. Under such circumstances, the Division W.P.(C)No.25041 of 2024 6 Bench held that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by document No.6540/2006 is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilising the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. The Travancore Devaswom Board holds all the properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Therefore, the Division Bench declared that the land covered by the aforesaid document and all structures standing thereon vest absolutely in the deity of Kaippallikkavu Bhagavathi Temple and those properties can only be managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Any person occupying such property, including Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust, shall cease to occupy that parcel and it will be exclusively under the management and control of the Travancore Devaswom Board on behalf of the deity.

5. The funds of the petitioner Committee, which is constituted to undertake the renovation works of Chalad Sree Dharmasastha Temple, cannot be utilised for any purpose other than for the renovation works of the said temple. The funds collected from the devotees, exclusively for the purpose of the deity, cannot be utilised by the petitioner Committee, which is holding the same as a W.P.(C)No.25041 of 2024 7 trustee, for the purpose of filing a writ petition before this Court, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

6. In case of any mismanagement by the trustees/ Board of Trustees of a temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, a devotee can approach the competent forum to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity, who is a perpetual minor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of any devotee of Chalad Sree Dharmasastha Temple to approach the competent forum to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE Sd/- MIN W.P.(C)No.25041 of 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25041/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A3/3122/2022/MDB(K.DIS) 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11-11-2022 WITH TYPED COPY THE OF COPY TRUE ORDER OF NO.A3/3773/2023/MDB(K.DIS) OF THE 3 RD RESPONDENT DATED 3-1-2024 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 13-6-2024 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14- 6-2024 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14-6-2024 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PICTURES OF THE BOX KEPT BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN THE TEMPLE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21- 6- 2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER.