Disposed

Kamoth Devaswom v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021WP(C)/215/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to interfere with the Special Commissioner's order appointing an Interim Trustee for the Kamoth Devaswom following the expiry of the petitioner committee's term and allegations against them. The Court directed the respondents to conduct elections expeditiously and ordered the immediate handover of charge.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to hand over charge and conduct elections within two months.

Kamoth Devaswom Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

KAMOTH DEVASWOM PANANGAD, KOCHI 682 506 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SURESH BABU M.G, S/O. V. GOPALA PANICKER, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MECHERIL HOUSE, PANANGAD, COCHIN 682 506

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON SRI.P.G.MAHESHKUMAR SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) SRI.R.BRIJESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR 680 001

¶13

2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA 682 301

¶14

**Addl. P.P.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 50 R3 S/O PADMNABHAN NAIR PANAGAMADATHIL, PANANGAD PO ERNAKULAM - 682 506 (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.2/2021)

¶15

R1-2 BY K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..2..

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021

¶20

Ravikumar,J.

¶21

The Kamoth Devasom, which is a controlled institution under the Cochin Devasom Board in terms of the provisions under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act') filed this writ petition seeking quashment of Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order dated 03.11.2020 issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner of Cochin Devaswom Board, appointing an Interim Trustee for managing the affairs of the aforesaid temple.

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as

¶23

also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶24

Admittedly, the petitioner is an elected committee which is managing the affairs of the

¶25

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..3..

¶26

administration of Kamoth temple, Panangad. They assumed charge in October, 2017. The admitted position is that the term of the said committee had expired in October, 2020. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the expiry of the term of the committee, for the purpose of conducting election to the new committee, Police assistance, rather, permission to conduct election, was sought for under Ext.P6. Ext.P6 would evince the same. As permission sought for, due to COVID-19 pandemic situation was not granted, election could not be conducted. Be that as it may, the fact is that based on certain complaints, an enquiry was conducted with respect to the functioning of the committee and a preliminary report was submitted on 15.10.2020. Ext.P7, the impugned order would reveal that against the petitioner committee, allegations are there and the enquiry into such allegations that resulted in the aforementioned

¶27

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..4..

¶28

preliminary report dated 15.10.2020. Taking into account the said situation, the fact that the term of the committee had expired in September 2020 and also in view of the pandemic situation, appointment of an Interim Trustee has become inevitable to manage the affairs of the temple. According to the respondents, it is in the aforesaid situation that Ext.P7 order was passed whereby and whereunder an Interim Trustee was appointed to manage the affairs and administration of the temple.

¶29

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised various grounds to mount challenge against Ext.P7. However, we are of the view that, it is too premature the petitioner to raise such contentions and hence for this Court to go into such contentions as Ext.P7 itself would reveal that, what was submitted pursuant to an enquiry was only a preliminary report. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further

¶30

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..5..

¶31

submit that the audit pertaining to the period the committee was in power, had already completed. Further more it is submitted by the learned Counsel that, in terms of the scheme (III.6 in Ext.P1) framed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, in respect of the Devaswom in question, despite the expiry of the term, it is permissible for the committee to continue till a new committee is constituted after fresh election.

¶32

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for

¶33

the respondent would submit that, in fact, enquiry referred to in Ext.P7 was conducted was based on a petition by two members of the petitioner committee. From the facts thus mentioned above, it is evident that the term of committee had already expired, allegations are raised against the functioning of the committee while it was in office and based on enquiry on such allegations, a preliminary report was submitted on 15.10.2020. In such circumstances, and also taking

¶34

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..6..

¶35

note of the fact that the election to constitute a new committee was not conducted owing to Covid-19 pandemic the 2^nd respondent took the decision to appoint an Interim Trustee. With respect to the power of the 2^nd respondent to appoint an Interim Trustee, there is no serious challenge. However, the challenge is made on the ground that there is no prevailing circumstances warranting appointment of an Interim Trustee and therefore, despite the expiry of the term as also the allegations the committee should be permitted to continue in office. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that a scanning of Ext.P7 would reveal that no circumstances or reason warranting exercise of power to appoint an Interim Trustee is specifically stated in Ext.P7. But then, it is to be noticed that the petitioner-committee itself admit the existence of the aforesaid reasons in Ext.P7. However, taking note of the fact that the term of the

¶36

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..7..

¶37

committee has admittedly expired, election to constitute new committee had not taken place due to COVID-19 pandemic, that against the petitioner committee, complaints carrying allegations were raised by none other than two of its members and in respect of such allegations a preliminary report was submitted on 15.10.2020, we are declining to interfere with Ext.P7. However, in the said circumstances, taking note of the rival submissions, even while declining to interfere with Ext.P7, we think that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action to conduct election to the committee of the Devaswom in question, expeditiously.

¶38

The learned Standing Counsel would submit that eventhough Ext.P7 was passed, the charge was not handed over to the Interim Trustee by the petitioner committee. In the light of this judgment, the petitioner committee shall forthwith hand over the

¶39

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..8..

¶40

charge to the Interim Trustee appointed under Ext.P7. The respondents and the Interim Trustee shall, within two months from the date of assuming charge by the Interim Trustee, conduct election to the committee in accordance with Ext.P1 scheme. We also make it clear that we have not made any observation regarding the correctness or otherwise of the allegations raised against the petitioner committee, in respect of which preliminary report was submitted.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

¶43

Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶44

SB/10/03/2021

¶45

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..9..

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME DATED 13-09-1955 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 2809/2008 DATED 1512-2010

¶49

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 21797/2017 DATED 11-07-2017

¶50

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REVIEW PETITIONS 732/17 AND 719/17 DATED 31-08-2017

¶51

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO. 35545/2017 DATED 6-3-2019

¶52

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10-10-2020 WITH ENDORSEMENT BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANANGAD POLICE STATION DECLING THE REQUESTS.

¶53

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3968/2003 DATED 03-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶54

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 16-12-2020

¶55

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2126/2020 DATED 27-1-2020

¶56

ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE INTERIM TRUSTEE APPOINTED PURSUANT TO EXT.P7 ORDER

¶57

ANNEXURE R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3.1.21 SUBMITTED BY THE INTERIM TRUSTEE BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIPUNITHURA DEVASWOM

¶58

ANNEXURE R1C TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 4.1.21 SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIPUNITHURA DEVASWOM TO THE 2ND

¶59

WP(C).No.215 OF 2021(B) ..10..

¶60

RESPONDENT

¶61

ANNEXURE R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.6.18 SUBMITTED BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF KAMOTH DEVASOM TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶62

ANNEXURE R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 4.10.18 SUBMITTED BY THE CONTROL INSPECTOR (SOUTH ZONE)

¶63

ANNEXURE R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-3968/03 DATED 14.3.2020 ISSUED BY SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶64

ANNEXURE R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶65

ANNEXURE R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 16.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶66

ANNEXURE R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.01.21 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INTERIM TRUSTEE.

¶67

//true copy //

¶68

P.A To Judge

Kamoth Devaswom v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamoth Devaswom v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saju Thuruthikunnel, Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

The Zamorin Raja of Calicut, Vs the State of Kerala

Kottayam Sree Thrikkaikunnu Mahadeva Temple Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

Suo Motu Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

G.Ravindranath Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Suo Motu Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board