Disposed

The President v. the Secretary

Kerala HC17 Feb 2020DBP/7/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suo motu proceeding, the High Court of Kerala directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to temporarily permit the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of Kalikavu Devi Temple to sell pooja articles pending the conduct of a lawful auction, noting the non-availability of articles at the temple.

What did the court decide?

Temporarily permitted the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) to sell pooja articles at the Kalikavu Temple with a proportionate reduction in the required deposit, valid until a lawful auction is conducte

The President Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

DBP.No.7 OF 2020

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD-TDB REPORT NO.66/2019 IN COMPLAINT NO.115/19-SELLING OF POOJA ARTICLES OF KALIKAVU DEVI TEMPLE-SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-REG.

¶9

APPLICANT:

¶10

THE PRESIDENT,TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE KALIKAVU DEVI TEMPLE, PAKALOMATTOM P.O KALIKAVU-686642

¶11

SUO MOTU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE SECRETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ETTUMANOOR

¶16

BY SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SC, TDB

¶17

SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (AMICUS CURIAE)

¶18

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

DBP.7/2020

ORDER

Ravikumar, J.

TDB Report No.66/2019 in Complaint No.115/2019 in relation to selling of pooja articles at Kalikavu Devi Temple led to the registration of the captioned DBP. The report would reveal that during yesteryears, tenders were invited for auctioning the right to vend pooja articles. Since 1.4.2019, there occurred substantial increase in the auction amount and consequently, none responded to the tender notifications. The issue raised in the complaint is that despite the said situation, no arrangement was made by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) for making available pooja articles in the temple so as to enable the devotees to make offerings to the deity. After hearing the complainant, the officials of the TDB and the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of the said temple, the learned Ombudsman filed Report No.66/2019.

¶24

When this matter came up for consideration on 27.1.2020,

¶25

time was granted to the learned standing counsel for the TDB to get

¶26

DBP.7/2020 3

¶27

instructions. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned standing counsel submitted that the TDB got objection regarding the proposal made in the report to give the right to sell pooja articles temporarily to the TAC. Though it is submitted that no date is fixed for conducting auction for the said purpose, entrusting the right to vend pooja articles, even on temporary basis to TAC, would set a bad precedent.

¶28

Obviously, the suggestion of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards in the matter is that the right to sell pooja articles be given to the TAC for a period of three months by giving proportionate reduction in the amount offered by the TAC for getting such right. It is to be noted at this juncture that the TAC had earlier offered an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of getting the right to vend pooja articles in the temple from 1.7.2019 to 31.3.2020. The learned counsel for the TAC submitted that the said amount was offered for getting the right for a period of nine months. Since that much period is not available, a proportionate reduction is to

¶29

DBP.7/2020 4

¶30

be made. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, we are inclined to dispose of the DBP. The submissions made by both sides, as noticed hereinbefore, would reveal that presently no arrangement is made for the devotees to get pooja articles. Non-availability of pooja articles in the precincts of a temple would create dejection among the devotees who are coming to the temple for Darshan. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that arrangements should be made in the temple to make available pooja articles including oil for the devotees to make offerings to the deity. In view of the state of affairs specifically mentioned hereinbefore, we are of the view that temporarily, the TAC of Kalikavu Temple can be permitted to sell the pooja articles at the temple. Such arrangements can be continued till the TDB takes appropriate steps for conducting auction of the right to sell pooja articles in the said temple in accordance with law and TDB entrusts the pious duty to the successful bidder. It is therefore made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the TDB in conducting auction for the aforesaid purpose, in accordance with law. Taking into account the period during which the TAC has to conduct

¶31

DBP.7/2020

¶32

¶33

sale of pooja articles, proportionate reduction shall be given to the

¶34

TDB in the matter of effecting deposit therefor though they had earlier offered an amount of Rs.40,000/- for conducting sale of pooja articles from 1.7.2019 to 31.3.2020.

¶35

With the above observation, this DBP stands disposed of.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

JUDGE

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spc/

The President v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Excise Vs Cochin Tourist Corporation

Sreekrishnan O Vs the District Collector

Reghu P.K Vs the District Collector

Sreekanteswara Kshetra Yogam, Vs State of Kerala

Thankamoni K., Vs Tranvore Devaswom Board

P.R.Suresh Kumar Vs the District Collector, Thrissur