Disposed

R.Sunil Kumar v. the Devaswom Commissioner

Kerala HC29 Aug 2022DBP/27/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple committee tenure extensions and inaction on a Vigilance report were questioned. The Court found the extensions vitiated by non-application of mind. Recording termination of the ad-hoc committee and a scheduled election meeting, it disposed of the petition with deadlines for the audit and finalisation of proceedings against the former secretary.

What did the court decide?

Audit report directed within two months of receipt of the certified order; Vigilance-based proceedings to be finalised within a further two months after hearing the affected respondent.

R.Sunil Kumar Vs the Devaswom Commissioner — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶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

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 7TH BHADRA, 1944

¶7

DBP NO. 27 OF 2022

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB PROCEEDINGS

¶9

INITIATED - REG.

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

R.SUNIL KUMAR

¶12

MELAY NADAKAVU VEEDU, T.C.NO.5/1832 (TRRA.175),
OOLANPARA, PEROORKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

¶15

2 ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ULLOOR GROUP, ULLOOR-695 011

¶16

3 SHRI.M.K.DEVARAJ, SITHARA BANKERS, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005

¶17

*4 ADDL R4: THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003

¶18

*5ADDL R5: THE SUB GROUP OFFICER
PEROOR SREE KRISHNA SWAMI TEMPLE,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
ULLOOR GROUP, ULLOOR - 695 011

¶19

¶20

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶21

*IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4
AND 5 VIDE ORDER DATED 28/06/2022 IN
DBP.NO.27/2022

¶22

**6ADDL R6- SMT.L.SAKUNTHALAKUMARI
FORMER ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ULLOOR GROUP,
WHO IS PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
OF OTC HANUMAN SWAMY TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
**IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10/08/2022 IN DBP
27/2022

¶23

BY ADVS.
G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
N.ANAND
RAJESH O.N.(K/000086/2019)

¶24

SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE

¶25

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

DBP No.27 of 2022

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶30

This DBP is registered based on TDB Report No.3 of 2022 of the learned Ombudsman, based on a complaint made by Sri.R.Sunilkumar, raising allegations of corruption against the Temple Advisory Committee of Peroor Sree Krishna Swami Temple, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The report of the learned Ombudsman reads thus:

¶31

“The petitioner had filed an earlier Complaint No.59 of 2020 raising allegation of corruption against Temple Advisory Committee. The Devaswom Commissioner entrusted the Vigilance to conduct enquiry and Vigilance filed report. Complaint No.59 of 2020 was closed as per proceedings dated 05.04.2021, directing Devaswom Commissioner to consider Vigilance Report and to take follow up action as available under law after hearing all the parties.

¶32

2. Complainant filed the present complaint, which is marked as Annexure 01. Petitioner states that no steps are taken against Sri.Devarajan by Devaswom officials even after receiving vigilance report. Pursuant to the notice issued by this office, Devaswom Commissioner filed reply stating that Sri.M.K.Devarajan was issued show cause notice and appropriate action will be taken on receipt of his statement. Copy of report of Devaswom Commissioner is marked as Annexure 02.

¶33

3. In the further reply dated 07.12.2021 Devaswom Commissioner has stated that the Vigilance Report is not

¶34

¶35

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶36

accepted by the delinquent, and he needs an eqnuiry by some other officials and matter has been conveyed to the Board. Copy of reply of Devaswom Commissioner is marked as Annexure 03. Copy of proceedings issued by this office is marked as Annexure 04.

¶37

4. It is stated in further reply of the Commissioner dated 22.02.2022 that Assistant Devaswom Commissioner reported that none of the temple employees are having any clear knowledge about the allegation and so Sri. M.K.Devarajan can be absolved from further action. Now the Finance Commissioner has been directed to audit the accounts during the festival of 1196. Reply of Devaswom Commissioner is marked as Annexure 05.

¶38

5. The Vigilance filed report after conducting enquiry based on the statements of parties, hence action taken by Assistant Devaswom Commissioner in absolving the delinquent without adequate reason has to be noticed seriously. Accounts are not audited and matter pending consideration of Finance' Commissioner.

¶39

6. In the facts and circumstances, whether there is sufficient material to ignore the Vigilance Report and prefer the opinion of Assistant Devaswom Commissioner in not taking action against Devarajan is a matter requiring further consideration by Hon'ble High Court.”

¶40

On 28.06.2022, when this DBP came up for admission,

¶41

this Court issued notice to the petitioner/complainant and also to the 3^rd respondent by speed post returnable within three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was

¶42

¶43

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶44

directed to file individual affidavits of respondents 4 and 5, before the next posting date. In the order dated 28.06.2022, this Court noticed that the specific allegation made against the 3^rd respondent is that he is continuing for the last several years either as a member of the Temple Advisory Committee of Peroor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple or as a member of the Adhoc Committee/Festival Committee/Sapthaha Committee .

¶45

On 03.08.2022, the 3^rd respondent entered appearance through counsel and sought time to file counter affidavit. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of this Court dated 03.08.2022 read thus;

¶46

“2. After considering the averments in TDB Report No.3 of 2022 of the learned Ombudsman and also the report dated 30.03.2021 of the Vigilance and Security Officer, we deem it appropriate to direct the 2^nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to be personally present before this Court on 10.08.2022, along with the relevant files relating to the appointment of Ad-hoc Committee in the temple in question with the 3^rd respondent as its Secretary.

¶47

An affidavit of the 1^st respondent Devaswom Commissioner, explaining the facts and circumstances in which the Ad-hoc Committee was constituted in the temple in question showing scant regard to the law laid down by this Court in Chandu K. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others

¶48

[2021 (3) KHC 379] and also in Sunil Kumar v.

¶49

¶50

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶51

Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 (4) KLT 324] , shall be placed on record by 09.08.2022.”

¶52

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit raising

¶53

various allegations against the petitioner/complainant. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that he was the Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee of Peroor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, which was approved by the Devaswom Commissioner on 20.01.2015. The Devaswom Commissioner extended the term of the Committee for one year on 23.01.2017, since ‘Devaprashnam’ and other religious rites were going on. On 07.02.2018, the term of the said Committee was extended by one more year to complete the ongoing renovation works. Since new Committee could not be elected, the list of ninemember Ad-hoc Committee was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner for approval. The Board, vide Ext.R3(a) order dated 14.08.2019, granted approval to the nine-member Ad-hoc Committee with the 3^rd respondent as its Convenor. The said Committee erected two flex boards to attract sponsors for the annual festival for the year 2020, which contained the name of the 3^rd respondent and the President of the Committee, with their cellphone numbers. A new Temple Advisory Committee was elected on 16.12.2019, which was granted approval by Ext.R3(b) proceedings dated 09.01.2020 of the Deputy Devaswom

¶54

¶55

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶56

Commissioner, in which the 3^rd respondent was not included. However, the said Committee did not remove the boards erected by the previous Ad-hoc Committee, in which the name of the 3^rd respondent was mentioned. The Temple Advisory Committee constituted an Ulsava Committee to raise funds for conducting the annual festival, in which the 3^rd respondent was included as the Convenor. According to the 3^rd respondent, he never interfered with the functioning of the Temple Advisory Committee and only solicited the fund for the annual temple festival. In the counter affidavit, the 3^rd respondent has stated that the report of the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board is absolutely without any basis. In the meeting convened on 02.02.2021, a Committee with the 3^rd respondent as Secretary was constituted to renovate the temple pond, as evidenced by Ext.R3(d). However, the Board did not granted approval for that Committee. The said Committee prepared Ext.R3(e) estimate for Rs.1,98,00,000/- for renovating the temple pond. In August, 2021, ten members of the Temple Advisory Committee resigned. Therefore, the Devaswom Commissioner constituted an Ad-hoc Committee vide Ext.R3(f) proceedings dated 22.10.2021, in which the 3^rd respondent was included as its Secretary. While the Ad-hoc Committee intended to start the

¶57

¶58

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶59

renovation of the temple pond, the Devaswom Board removed the Ad-hoc Committee, in order to elect a new Temple Advisory Committee.

¶60

On 10.08.2022, when this DBP came up for

¶61

consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶62

“Today, based on the order of this Court dated 03.08.2022, Sri.Rejilal, who presently holding the post of Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor Group, with effect from 06.06.2022, is personally present in court. He would point out that at the relevant time Smt.L.Sakunthalakumari was the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner of Ulloor Group, who is presently the Administrative Officer of OTC Hanuman Swamy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶63

The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that steps have already been taken to elect the Temple Advisory Committee in Peroor Sree Krishna Swami Temple in terms of Section 31A of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The learned Standing Counsel would also submit that on 27.07.2022, the Devaswom Commissioner has already passed an order, directing to remove the Adhoc Committee, in which the 3^rd respondent was the Secretary, and to convene the meeting of the registered mandalam in order to elect the members of the Temple Advisory Committee. Proceedings in that regard are in progress.

¶64

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit today as Bench Mark.

¶65

Smt.L.Sakunthalakumari, former Assistant Devaswom

¶66

¶67

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶68

Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, Ulloor Group, who is presently working as Administrative Officer of OTC Hanuman Swamy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram, is suo motu impleaded as additional 6^th respondent.

¶69

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board shall ensure the personal presence of the additional 6^th respondent on the next posting date.

¶70

Personal appearance of the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with for the time being.”

¶71

On 22.08.2022, the additional 6^th respondent was

¶72

personally present in Court. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the affidavit of the additional 6^th respondent, explaining the facts and circumstances, is being filed on that date.

¶73

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.07.2022. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that counter read thus;

¶74

“3. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards vide Complaint No.59 of 2020 raising allegation of corruption against Temple Advisory Committee. The complaint was closed vide proceedings dated 05.04.2021, directing the 1^st respondent to consider Vigilance Report and to take follow up action as available under law after hearing all the parties. The petitioner filed the present complaint stating that no steps are taken against the 3^rd respondent by the Devaswom officials even after receiving vigilance report.

¶75

¶76

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶77

It is submitted that the Devaswom Commissioner by his report dated 05.07.2022 had intimated that on receiving the Vigilance report dated 31.03.2021, necessary actions were taken in terms of the recommendations in the report. As regards the dismissal of the Advisory Committee is concerned, since the members of the Advisory Committee expressed their willingness to resign from their posts, the Devaswom Commissioner had accepted the resignation on 27.08.2021. 5. It may be noted that as regards the actions to be taken against unauthorized collection of money by the office bearers, the Assistant Commissioner Ulloor Group had issued a show cause notice to the 3^rd respondent. Devaswom Commissioner reported further that the Assistant Commissioner by his report dated 19.01.2022 had recommended not to take any action against the 3^rd respondent on the basis of Vigilance Report but to conduct further enquiry as requested by the 3^rd respondent on the allegation against him. Considering the action against the then administrative Officer/Sub Group Officer suggested by the Vigilance, the Devaswom Commissioner reported that a show cause notice was issued to the officer concerned. On receiving the reply to the said notice, Devaswom Commissioner had closed the actions against the officer giving strict warning to him for the inactions on his part and that he should not do any latches in doing his duties in future. A true copy of the proceedings of the Devaswom Commissioner dated 14.03.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(a).

¶78

It is submitted that as regards the recommendation of Vigilance on audit of accounts, the Devaswom Commissioner had directed the Finance Commissioner to take action so as to

¶79

¶80

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶81

audit the accounts during the period of the Temple Advisory Committee. As the said audit report has not been received, a reminder was also given to the Finance Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner further reported that final decision against the 3^rd respondent has not been taken yet and such a decision can be taken after getting the audit report of Finance Commissioner in this regard.

¶82

It is further submitted that the 3^rd respondent is presently holding the post of the Secretary of the Ad-hoc Committee in the Peroor Sree Krishna Temple. As the previous Temple Advisory Committee office bearers had offered their resignation during the midst of pandemic Covid-19 and also taking note of the works to be conducted in the temple pond, the Devaswom Commissioner had approved the formation of an ad-hoc committee. However, as the aforesaid works have not yet completed, the respondent further submits that steps will be taken for constituting a new Temple advisory Committee in a time bound manner.”

¶83

The additional 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit

¶84

dated 23.07.2022. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that affidavit read thus;

¶85

“2. I was holding the charge of the Administrative Officer, Peroor Devaswom during the period from 11.12.2019 to 04.06.2020. During the said period as the said Devaswom was in AO Grade, Administrative Officer post was in existence. The aforesaid DBP is registered based on the complaint preferred by the petitioner alleging corruption against the Temple Advisory Committee. The question to be decided in this DBP is whether there is sufficient material to ignore the Vigilance report and prefer the opinion of Assistant Devaswom

¶86

¶87

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶88

Commissioner in not taking action against the 3^rd respondent. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint be3fore the Hon‘ble Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards vide Complaint No.59 of 2020 raising allegation of corruption against Temple Advisory Committee. The complaint was closed vide proceedings dated 05.04.2021, directing the 1^st respondent to consider Vigilance Report and to take follow up action as available under law after hearing all the parties. The petitioner filed the present complaint stating that no steps are taken against the 3^rd respondent by the Devaswom officials even after receiving vigilance report.

¶89

It may be noted that a newly elected Temple Advisory Committee was formed on 12.12.2019, i.e., on the very next day when I had joined as Administrative Officer at Peroor Devaswom in which one Sri. Padmakumar was elected as the President and one Sri.Satheendran as the Secretary. In the said Committee, the 3^rd respondent was not a member also. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the Vigilance had prepared its report without properly verifying the records. Based on the Vigilance report, the Devaswom Commissioner had issued a show cause notice on 10.11.2021 to me for which I had offered my explanation also. A true copy of the reply dated nil offered to the Devaswom Commissioner is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R5(a). However, the explanation offered by me was not taken into account and the Devaswom Commissioner vide order dated 14.03.2022 had decided to close the proceedings against me by issuing strict warning to me. The reasons for giving such a warning is not forthcoming. The warning might be solely on account of relying

¶90

¶91

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶92

the Vigilance report which does not disclose any reasons and basis for such a findings also.”

¶93

The additional 6^th respondent has filed an affidavit dated

¶94

16.08.2022. Paragraphs 4 to 9 of that affidavit read thus;

¶95

It is humbly submitted that the Advisory Committee of this temple under the bye-law was last formed in 2019. Sri.A. Padmakumar residing at Souparnika, TJRA 272, Peroorkada P.O. as the president and Sri. Satheendran N.A., Saraswathy Vihar, T/C 5/24, Peroorkada P.O., as the Secretary and 11 others were selected as Executive Members. The Committee was approved vide Order No. R.O.C No 25136/19/N.S. dated 09.01.2020. The term of the Committee is two years.

¶96

It is humbly submitted that on 28.07.2021, the Sub Group Officer of this temple, Smt. Valsala Kumari has reported to me that the term of the Advisory Committee of Peroor Devaswom is almost over and that the pond adjacent to the temple is getting destroyed and they don't have ability or capacity to renovate it so that they informed that they are submitting their resignation letters. I have communicated this information to the Devaswom Commissioner in writing. The Devaswom Commissioner accepted these resignation letters and ordered the formation of a new Temple Advisory Committee or Ad-hoc Committee on 27.08.2021. Based on that I have instructed the Sub Group Officer to convene a general body meeting of the Temple Advisory Committee. But there was a situation where a general body meeting could not be convened due to adverse conditions of Covid spread. Therefore it was decided to form an Ad-Hoc Committee for the time being. A seven member Adhoc Committee was selected and the Sub Group Officer has

¶97

¶98

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶99

submitted a list on 30.09.2021 for approval. I have forwarded it to the Devaswom Commissioner for approval.

¶100

It may be noted that after that on 05.10.2021, an order was received from the Devaswom Commissioner along with a show cause notice to serve to Sri.Devarajan, former Secretary of Temple Advisory Committee. He happened to be selected as the Secretary of the Ad-hoc Committee. If this notice had been received before 30.09.2021, the date of formation of the Adhoc Committee, there would not have been a situation of including him in the Ad-hoc Committee. It may be noted that he has not been convicted of any financial corruption or convicted in any of the criminal cases so as to keep him from being included in the committees. Moreover, the Vigilance report also says that there is no evidence to show that he has collected money and acquired illegal assets. It was only alleged that the Temple Advisory Committee was controlled by the external power of Sri Devarajan. Although the Vigilance report has also alleged that he is trying to control the temple administration, no such complaint has been received from the side of the Sub Group Officer. A copy of the report dated 10.01.2022 received from the Sub group Officer is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R6(a). Therefore, after being included in the Ad-hoc committee, he was allowed to remain in the committee because of the inappropriateness of removing him from the committee without completing the legal procedures on the Vigilance Report.

¶101

It is humbly submitted that it cannot be ignored that many development works have taken place in Peroor Sreekrishnaswami temple for the last 20 years as a result of the sincere co-operation of the respective temple advisory

¶102

¶103

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶104

Committees. Open Air Stage Construction, Anakottil Construction, tile laying in the nalambalam, Goshala construction and many other construction have been done here with the active participation of Temple Advisory Committees. It cannot be denied that Sri.Devarajan also had leadership involvement in these activities.

¶105

It is most humbly submitted that it is for these reasons that a report had been given to the Devaswom Commissioner contrary to what is said in the Vigilance report. Other than that, I humbly submitted that I have not made any attempt to give illegal help to Sri. Devarajan or anyone else. In fact the findings in my report were my observations which I had collected during my inspection conducted on 02.01.2022 and statements gathered during the said inspection. The Board as well as this Hon'ble court is the final authority to decide as to whether my observations in the report shall be considered or not. The same was placed only to help the Board to arrive in a proper finding in the matter since certain findings contained in the Vigilance Report was not in tune with certain official records. Vigilance before suggesting action against the 5^th respondent even did not verified the tenure period of the 5^th respondent in Peroor Devaswom and as to whether the 3rd respondent was included in the Temple Advisory Committee during the tenure period of the 5^th respondent.

¶106

It is further submitted that the Devaswom Commissioner vide Order No. R.O.C. 25136/19/NS-1 dated 22.07.2022 has granted sanction for constituting Temple Advisory Committee at Peroor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple. Accordingly notice has been issued on 10.08.2022 by the Sub Group Officer for inclusion of new members in the registered mandalam.

¶107

¶108

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶109

Therefore it is clear that election process of the TAC has already been started and the same can be completed in a time bound manner.”

¶110

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1, 2, 4 to 6, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and also the learned Amicus Curiae for Ombudsman. Despite service of notice, none appears for the petitioner/complainant.

¶111

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the Ad-hoc Committee constituted in Peroor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, vide Ext.R3(f) proceedings dated 22.10.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, in which the 3^rd respondent was the Secretary, has already been terminated and a meeting of the registered Mandalam to elect new members to the Temple Advisory Committee is scheduled to be held on 02.09.2022. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent, steps will be taken to constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee in a time bound manner.

¶112

In Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board

¶113

[2021 (3) KHC 379] a Division Bench of this Court held that, with

¶114

¶115

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶116

the insertion of Section 31A to the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples has become statutory. In the said decision, the Division Bench noticed that, the Travancore Devaswom Board, in exercise of the rule making power under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, has framed rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board and this Court has approved the draft bye-laws by the order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No. 153 of 2009. Clause (11) of the Rules deals with the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee. As per Clause (11), the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner has the authority to extend the term of the committee by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board will have the power to extend the term by a further period of one year. The term shall not to be extended beyond the period of two years. Thus, the term of the committees is statutorily fixed. The term can be extended by one year or up to two years under certain unavoidable circumstances and no longer. The object of providing duration of

¶117

¶118

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶119

office of Temple Advisory Committees in the approved bye-laws is to see that timely elections are held and the constitution of the Committees are not delayed. The power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, which is fixed as per the approved bye-laws, shall not be exercised as a matter of course. They shall call for report regarding the developmental work going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple concerned and apply their mind to the materials and form a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not.

¶120

In Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore

¶121

Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KLT 324] this Court held that, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (2) and Clause (11) of the Rules framed for the formation of the Temple Advisory Committee in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under

¶122

Section 31A of the Act. In view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11), the term of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. In view of the prohibition

¶123

¶124

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶125

contained in Clause (18), a person, who is an office bearer or the member of the Temple Advisory Committee, is not eligible to continue as such, continuously exceeding the term of two Committees. As held by this Court in Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379] the power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extent the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be exercised as a matter of course. The Devaswom Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall call for a report regarding the developmental works going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple and apply its mind to the materials and take a decision as to whether extension of time has to be given or not.

¶126

In the instant case, the pleadings and materials on record would show that while granting extension of time to the Temple Advisory Committee of Peroor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, an exercise, as per the requirements of Section 31A of the Act and the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees framed thereunder, was not undertaken by the Devaswom Commissioner or

¶127

the Board and those orders are vitiated by total non-application of mind. Even after the expiry of the extended term of the Temple Advisory Committee, Adhoc Committees were constituted, in which

¶128

¶129

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶130

the 3^rd respondent was included either as its Secretary or Convenor. The fact that, even during the term of a duly elected Temple Advisory Committee, in which the 3^rd respondent was not even a member, the board exhibited in the temple premises contained the name and mobile number of the 3^rd respondent.

¶131

From the affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent, it is that, the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint before the learned Ombudsman which was numbered as Complaint No.59 of 2020 raising allegations of corruption against the Temple Advisory Committee. That complaint was closed vide proceedings dated 05.04.2021 directing the Devaswom Commissioner to consider the Vigilance report and take follow up action as per law, after hearing all the parties. The petitioner filed Complaint No.55 of 2021 alleging that no steps were taken against the 3^rd respondent even after receiving the Vigilance report. The Devaswom Commissioner by his report dated 05.07.2022 had intimated that on receipt of Vigilance report dated 31.03.2021, necessary actions were taken in terms of the recommendations in that report. On unauthorized collection of money by the office bearers, the Assistant Commissioner had issued a show cause notice to the 3^rd respondent. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide report dated 19.01.2022 recommended no

¶132

¶133

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶134

action against the 3^rd respondent on the basis of the Vigilance report. The Assistant Commissioner recommended the conduct of further enquiry, as requested by the 3^rd respondent on the allegations against him. Insofar as the action initiated against the then Administrative Officer based on the report of the Vigilance is concerned, on receiving reply to the show cause notice, the Devaswom Commissioner dropped action against the said officer vide Annexure R4(a) proceedings dated 14.03.2022. On the recommendation of the Vigilance on the audit of accounts, Devaswom Commissioner directed the Finance Commissioner to take action to audit the accounts during the period of the Temple Advisory Committee. As the Audit report has not been received, a reminder was also given to the Finance Commissioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent it is stated that as reported by the Devaswom Commissioner, the proceedings initiated against the 3^rd respondent has not been finalised, since it can be finalised only after getting the audit report of the Finance Commissioner.

¶135

In the above circumstances, this DBP is disposed of recording

¶136

the fact that the Ad-hoc Committee in Peroor Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, in which the 3^rd respondent herein was the Secretary, has

¶137

¶138

DBP No.27 of 2022

¶139

already been terminated and a meeting of the registered mandalam to elect new members to the Temple Advisory Committee is scheduled to be held on 02.09.2022. The Finance Commissioner shall submit the audit report of the Temple Advisory Committee for the period in question, which is referred to in the recommendation of the Vigilance, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter the Devaswom Commissioner shall finalise the proceedings issued against the 3^rd respondent, based on the Vigilance report, in accordance with law, after affording the said respondent a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his contentions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months.

¶140

Sd/-

¶141

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶142

Sd/-

¶143

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

DBP No.27 of 2022

APPENDIX OF DBP 27/2022

¶148

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶149

ANNEXURE-R5(a)True copy of the reply dated nil offered
to the Devaswom Commissioner .
Annexure-R4(a)True copy of the Proceedings of the
Devaswom Commissioner dated 14/03/2022.
Exhibit-R(3)(a)True copy of the order dated 14.08.2019
issued by the Deputy Devaswom Commis-
sioner, Travancore Devaswom Board
Exhibit-R(3)(b)True copy of the order dated 09.01.2020
issued by the Deputy Devaswom Commis-
sioner, Travancore Devaswom Board
Exhibit-R(3)(c)True copy of the programme published by
the Sasthamangalam Mahadeva Kshetram
Exhibit-R(3)(d)True copy of the communication dated
02.02.2021 issued by the Temple Advisory
Committee to the Sub Group Officer,
Peroor Devaswom
Exhibit-R(3)(e)True copy of the relevant portion of the
proposal
Exhibit-R(3)(f)True copy of the order dated 22.10.2021
issued by Deputy Devaswom Commissioner,
Travancore Devaswom Board

¶150

ANNEXURE-R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.01.2022
RECEIVED FROM THE SUB GROUP OFFICER.

R.Sunil Kumar v. the Devaswom Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sunil Kumar v. the Devaswom Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponnamma Lekshmi Narayani Vs P.Lalitha Mani

Kandoth Jameela Vs Government of Kerala

Roy Thomas, Vs Augustine Kuruvilla

Board of Trustees, Vs State of Kerala

Thiruvarattukavu Devi (a Perpetual Minor) Vs Union of India

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Union of India