Disposed

P.Sathyaseelan Nair, v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC5 Nov 2021DBP/23/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Devaswom Board Petition by permitting the Board to proceed with the Balalayam Pratishta of the Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple, adhering to parliamentary decisions from an Ombudsman report that explicitly forbade the use of hydraulic/mechanical devices for lifting the deity.

What did the court decide?

The Travancore Devaswom Board is permitted to proceed with Balalayam Pratishta without any mechanical device, following the Ombudsman's terms.

P.Sathyaseelan Nair, Vs the Travancore… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

DBP NO. 23 OF 2021

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB PROCEEDINGS

¶9

INITIATED – REG.

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

P.SATHYASEELAN NAIR, SECRETARY, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MANKOMBU SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, MANKOMBU PO – 688502.

¶12

SUO MOTU

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶16

3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHANGANASSERY

¶17

4 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, MANKOMBU DEVASWOM, MANKOMPU PO.

¶18

5 SHRI. BRAHMMASREE KANTARARU MOHANARU THANTRY, THAZHAMON MADOM, CHENGANNUR.

¶19

6 STHAPATHY BRAHMMASREE CHITHRABHANU NAMBOOTHIRIPPADU VEZHAPPARAMBU MANA, KARUMALOOR, MANAIKKAPADY, NORTH PARUR

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶23

SRI P. RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE , SRI G BIJU- STANDING COUNSEL , TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶24

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Anil K. Narendran, J

¶28

W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 2021 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶29

The common issue involved in these writ petitions and

¶30

the D.B.P. relates to renovation of Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple in Alappuzha District.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.19119 of 2020 is one filed by the

¶32

Temple Advisory Committee of Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple seeking various reliefs including a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take immediate and concrete steps for the renovation and development of Mankombu Bhagavathi Temple, including the re-installation of flag-mast, as suggested and recommended in Ext.P3 letter dated 08.03.2018 of the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, addressed to the Secretary of the 1^st respondent Board. In that writ petition respondents 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit dated 30.11.2020. The petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2021 seeking various interim reliefs.

¶33

4 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶34

W.P.(C)No.18306 of 2021 is one filed by a

¶35

devotee of Mankombu Bhagavathi seeking a writ of

¶36

mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to see that the properties of Mankombu Bhagavathi Temple are restored to the Devaswom from unlawful encroachers and those who obtained the property illegally and clandestinely. In that writ

¶37

petition, the 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 08.10.2021

¶38

W.P.(C)No.2563 of 2021 is one filed by two devotees of Mankombu Bhagavathi seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to carry out the entire renovation work of Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple, strictly adhering to the recommendation and remedial measures suggested in Ext.P2 prasanacharthu, expending its own funds, and not to lift the temple with the aid of jack or any other mechanism. In this writ petition, this Court passed an order of status quo on 02.02.2021, which reads thus:

¶39

“Status quo shall be maintained with respect to the lifting of the temple with the aid of hydraulic jack and the Balalaya Pratishta. However, we make it clear that

¶40

5 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶41

this order will not stand in the way of taking a decision by the Thantri of Mankombu Sree Bhagavathy temple and Sthapathi engaged in the matter for renovation of the temple in fixing the muhurtham for Balalaya Pratishta. The respondents shall get the opinion of the Thantri with respect to the manner in which Balalaya Pratishta is going to be effected and also the decision of the TDB in that matter.”

¶42

In W.P.(C)No.2563 of 2021, respondents 1 to 3

¶43

have filed counter affidavit dated 09.03.2021, followed by additional counter affidavit dated 25.10.2021. Along with the counter affidavit Ext.R1(a) letter dated 27.09.2016 of the Thantri is produced, which is one addressed to the 2^nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner regarding the pathetic state of affairs prevailing in the temple and also the necessity for renovation works. The document marked as Ext.R1(b) is a copy of the proceedings dated 29.12.2020 of the 1^st respondent Board regarding constitution of a technical committee consisting of six members for executing the work relating to lifting of temple structure to a height of 1.80 meters from the existing level. As per Ext.R1(c) letter dated 16.02.2021, various directions have been issued by the

¶44

6 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶45

Devaswom Commissioner to the concerned Assistant Engineer with regard to the renovation works. The document marked as Ext.R1(d) is a letter dated 23.02.2021 addressed to the concerned Assistant Engineer, wherein it is stated that it is impossible to conduct Balalaya Prathishta.

¶46

Along with the additional counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, Ext.R1(e) letter dated 25.09.2021 of the Executive Engineer addressed to the Chief Engineer, regarding the repairs and maintenance to temple structures of Mankombu Devaswom is placed on record, whereby administrative sanction was sought for various works for an amount of Rs.13,25,000/-. An abstract estimate is also enclosed along with Ext.R1(e). In Ext.R1(e) the Executive Engineer has specifically pointed out that water logging in temple can be solved only by elevating the temple structure or by carrying out the entire reconstruction of temple structure. The estimate is prepared for attending the repairs and maintenance to the temple structure, excluding Sreekovil.

¶47

By order dated 26.10.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021,

¶48

7 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶49

the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 7.

¶50

In the additional counter affidavit filed in W.P. (C)No.2563 of 2021 by respondents 1 to 3 it is stated that the additional 4^th respondent, who is the Secretary of Temple Advisory Committee of Mankombu Devi Temple, preferred a complaint with regard to the subject matter before the learned Ombudsman, which has already been registered as Complaint No.52 of 2021. In that matter, the Ombudsman has convened a meeting of all concerned on 01.11.2021.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the Ombudsman.

¶52

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2563 of 2021 would submit that the intention of the 1^st petitioner, who was the Melshanthi of Mankombu Sree Bhagavathi Temple and that of the 2^nd petitioner, who was a member of the Kshethra

¶53

8 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶54

Upadesaka Samithy, is only to see that no mechanical device is used for lifting the Deity or the Sreekovil.

¶55

Before the learned Ombudsman, in Complaint No.52 of 2021, the Thantri filed a detailed statement. In that complaint the learned Ombudsman conducted a hearing on 01.11.2021 at TDB Guest House, Aluva and submitted a detailed report, i.e., T.D.B.Report No. 18 of 2021. In paragraph 4 of that report the learned Ombudsman had noticed that the Thantri had written to the Travancore Devaswom Board indicating that shifting of the Deity to Balalayam as well as lifting of Sreekovil by hydraulic machine are not feasible. The learned Ombudsman has also noticed that the issue relating to reconstruction of the temple, whether it should be reconstructed of lifted using any mechanical device, is an issue pending before this Court in W.P(C)Nos.19119 of 2020 and 2563 of 2021. Therefore

¶56

the only issue that was considered by the learned Ombudsman was regarding shifting of Deity to Balalayam without using any mechanical device. In the meeting convened on 01.11.2021 the Thantri submitted that

¶57

9 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶58

10.11.2021 between 9.30 a.m. And 10.00 a.m., will be the auspicious time and date for conducting Balalaya Prathishta. After discussion the following decisions were reached and those decisions, which are extracted in paragraph 12 of T.D.B.Report No.18 of 2021, read thus:

¶59

(i) The Balalaya Prathishta will be conducted on 10.11.2021 between 9.30 A.M. and 10 A.M.

¶60

(ii) Considering the fact that this is a Dharusilpam and as it is likely to take more time and the work of uplifting the Idol has to be done very cautiously and slowly without causing any damage, it was agreed by the 5^th respondent Thanthri and 6^th respondent Sthapathy that Chaithanya from the Moola Bimbam can be invoked in the Balalaya Bimbam/Ulsava Moorthy and shift the same after conducting necessary Poojas to the Balalayam at the appointed time. This is also a known practice as is stated by the 6^th respondent Sthapathy in his Statement and found to be more feasible in this case for reasons already stated above.

¶61

(iii) The Anky adorned on the Deity will be removed and handed over to the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner on the previous day, whose presence shall be ensured by the Devaswom Board and to take

¶62

10 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶63

steps for keeping the same safely in the strong room.

¶64

(iv) With the blessings of the Thanthri, after the Balalaya Prathishta is over, the Achary, with the blessings of the Thanthri and the 6^th respondent Sthapathy, will start the work towards uplifting of the Moola Bimbam along with the Peetam.

¶65

(v) Being a Dharushilpa, utmost care shall be taken to ensure that no damages are caused to the Deity in this process.

¶66

(vi) It is open to the Thanthri if he is of the opinion that the Moola Bimbam is to be bodily moved from the Sreekovil and shift the same to the Balalayam by deputing men of his choice.

¶67

(vii) The President of the Devaswom Board shall ensure the presence of the Chief Engineer for any technical expertise required to complete the process of shifting.

¶68

(viii) No hydraulic device shall be used for uplifting the Deity.

¶69

(ix) The entire activities shall be supervised by the President of the Board. The 5^th respondent Thanthri as also the 6^th respondent Sthapathy who have agreed to be present, sufficiently early on the previous day itself.

¶70

(x) The TAC and the Devaswom Board shall

¶71

11 W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶72

ensure due completion of the reconstruction in whatever manner as decided by the Honourable High Court, within a time frame and an Undertaking to that effect shall be submitted to the Honourable High Court.

¶73

(xi) All have agreed to extend their full cooperation to see that the Balalaya Prathishta goes on well with the blessings of God.

¶74

D.B.P.No.23 of 2021 is registered based on the

¶75

aforesaid report of the learned Ombudsman, i.e., T.D.B. Report No.18 of 2021.

¶76

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the Travancore Devaswom Board can be permitted to proceed with Balalaya Prathishta, in terms of clauses (i) to (ix) of paragraph 12 of T.D.B.Report No.18 of 2021 of the learned Ombudsman.

¶77

In the result, D.B.P.No.23 of 2021 is disposed of by permitting the Travancore Devaswom Board to proceed with Balalaya Prathishta, strictly in terms of clauses (i) to (ix) of paragraph 12 of T.D.B.Report No.18 of 2021 of the learned Ombudsman. No mechanical device shall be used for

¶78

¶79

W.P.(C)Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 21 and D.B.P.No.23 of 2021

¶80

lifting the Deity. Further directions regarding reconstruction of temple structures will be issued in the pending writ petitions.

¶81

W.P.(C) Nos.19119 of 2020, 18306 of 2021, 2563 of 2021

¶82

List on 7.12.2021 for further consideration.

¶83

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶86

P.Sathyaseelan Nair, v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sathyaseelan Nair, v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

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

Abdul Salah Thottungal Vs Seagulls' Catch Restaurant Private Limited

Prem Dhanapalan Vs Mahima.S

Chethil Tharemmal Rasheeda Vs Peedikayilakath Muhammad

Bono Fernandez @ Mary Bono Fernandez Vs Ajin Cheriyan George

Dr.Paul K. Chandy, Vs K.v.Shiraz

Jalaludheen Vs Abdul Rasheed