Dismissed

Sadanandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC5 Aug 2022WP(C)/10181/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the respondent Board's inaction regarding copper plating of a temple roof. The Court directed the Board to decide, within two months, whether to prioritize roof replacement or constructing fencing for secure temple properties. All collected funds must be utilized based on this decision, with fencing requiring forest approval.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Board directed to take an appropriate decision on prioritizing roof replacement or fencing within two months; collected funds to be utilized accordingly.

Sadanandan Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶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 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10181 OF 2009

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SADANANDAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN,

¶9

AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAROTTIPARAMBIL
HOUSE,, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU
TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,
NATHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, SC, TDB
SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT

¶14

SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB
SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB
G.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SC, TDB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR

¶16

ADMISSION ON 05.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

-2-

¶18

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶21

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Iringole Bhagavathy Temple at Perumbavur, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to tender the work of ‘copper plating’ of the roof of the Chuttambalam of the said temple and to complete the work immediately. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was formerly the president of the Temple Advisory Committee of Iringole Bhagavathy Temple, which is having 51 Acres of thick forest land within the Perumbavur Municipal area. The entire forest land formerly belonged to Nagancherry Mana was surrendered to Travancore Devaswom Board. When

¶22

the petitioner was the President of the Temple Advisory Committee, a request was placed before the Board for covering the roof of the Chuttambalam with copper plates. The Board granted administrative sanction, vide Ext.P1 order dated 20.09.2004, subject to the condition that the Temple Advisory Committee has to remit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as

¶23

-3-

¶24

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶25

contribution. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the concerned Chief Engineer issued Ext.P2 communication dated 08.10.2004, whereby the Temple Advisory Committee was directed to remit the contribution. Thereafter, the Temple Advisory Committee made Ext.P3 request dated 18.06.2005 before the Board, whereby it was informed that immediately they can contribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within a stipulated time. On such request, the Board took a stand that the work will be tendered only after receiving the entire contribution amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, in the year 2007 the Temple Advisory Committee collected Rs.3,00,000/- and gave it to the Board by way of Demand Draft dated 24.10.2007. That payment was made when the petitioner was the President of the Temple Advisory Committee. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite repeated requests, the Board has not taken any steps to tender the work of copper plating of the roof of the Chuttambalam.

¶26

On 30.03.2009, when this writ petition came up for

¶27

admission, this Court directed that the amount, if any remitted by the petitioner, to be kept separately for the time

¶28

-4-

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶30

being, earmarking for copper plating work of the Chuttambalam. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions as to the steps taken by the Board for the copper plating work.

¶31

On 11.06.2009, this matter was referred for the

¶32

report of the learned Ombudsman. The Board was directed to report as to whether there is any budgetary provision for sanctioning copper plating, in the coming year.

¶33

On 25.02.2010, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, this Court perused the report dated 15.02.2010 of the learned Ombudsman, wherein it was stated that there is no compound wall on all sides of the temple, though there was compound wall around certain portions of the temple. The learned Ombudsman had suggested that the compound wall is to be constructed or fencing is to be done to secure the temple properties. There are some repairs to be effected to the existing Chuttambalam, though there was no serious damage. Therefore, in the order dated 25.10.2010,

¶34

this Court observed that it would be for the devotees to bestow attention at the first instance to the aforesaid matters, because, the Travancore Devaswom Board does not appear to

¶35

-5-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶37

have sufficient fund allocation for covering Chuttambalam with copper sheet. It is appropriate for the Temple Advisory Committee to consider that aspect and place its views in consultation with the devotees, who attend the meeting, so that this Court can appropriately mould the relief regarding the money kept with the Travancore Devaswom Board, as remitted by the Temple Advisory Committee.

¶38

On 17.06.2010, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶39

“The Temple Advisory Committee collected an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and deposited with Devaswom Board to meet part of cost of replacement of roof with copper sheets. Standing Counsel for Devaswom Board submitted that the cost of copper sheet roofing is estimated at Rs.67 lakhs for which there is no budget allocation. We feel copper roofing involves enormous cost which could easily be avoided because in the place of copper, coated aluminium can be used which looks equally beautiful and the cost will be much less. There will be general direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board not to approve copper roofing of any temple under it without prior approval from this court. The Engineering Wing of Devaswom Board is directed to examine whether powder coated aluminium sheets (tile design with brick colour) could be used for temple roofing hereafter and report it’s views to this court. In this case since Ombudsman has suggested that there is no necessity to go for roof changing, but suggested construction of compound wall, the Temple Advisory Committee is directed to file a report in this court as to what is the more urgent work required for the temple

¶40

-6-

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶42

including maintenance so that the funds collected by them and that could be released by the Devaswom could be utilized for the said purpose.”

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶44

also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the respondent.

¶45

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per Section 15A of the Act, which deals with duties of the Board, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 15A, which includes duty to see that regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 31 of the Act, which deals with management of Devaswoms, subject to the provisions of Part-I of the Act and the rules made

¶46

-7-

¶47

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶48

thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of festivals in every temple according to its usage.

¶49

Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. In Chandu K. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2021 (3) KHC 379] a Division Bench of this Court held that, with the insertion of Section 31A to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples has become statutory.

¶50

Though the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that he has filed a statement dated 16.09.2009 on behalf of the respondent Board, producing therewith the revised estimate for providing copper sheeted roof of Chuttambalam, the said statement is not seen incorporated in the judges papers. The endorsements made by Registry in the ‘office notes’ would not show the filing of such a statement by the learned Standing

¶51

-8-

¶52

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶53

Counsel.

¶54

From the copy of the said statement handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, we notice that the revised estimate for providing copper sheeted roof to the Chuttambalam of Iringole Bhagavathy Temple was prepared by the Chief Engineer (General), Travancore Devaswom Board for Rs.67,95,000/-, and that was placed before the Board for administrative sanction, in cancellation of the original estimate for Rs.33,05,000/-, vide Chief Engineer’s letter No.2431 dated 27.09.2008. As on the date of filing of that statement, i.e., 16.09.2009, the administrative sanction of the Board was not obtained.

¶55

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent Board to take an appropriate decision as to whether priority should be given to copper plating of the roof of Chuttambalam of Iringole Bhagavathy Temple or to have a proper fencing to secure the temple properties having an extent of 51 Acres of thick forest land within Perumbavur Municipal area. A decision

¶56

-9-

¶57

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶58

in this regard shall be taken, taking note of the directions contained in the order dated 17.06.2010, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Any fencing of the temple property, which is a thick forest land, shall be made only after obtaining prior approval/permission from the concerned Forest officials. The contribution of Rs.3,00,000/collected by the then Temple Advisory Committee in the year 2007 shall be utilised for the work undertaken in Iringole Bhagavathy Temple based on such decision.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶63

AV/8/8

¶64

-10-

¶65

W.P.(C). No. 10181 of 2009

¶66

APPENDIX

¶67

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶68

EXT.P1 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF HTE ORDER ROC NO.4557/04/M
 DATED 20.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY

¶69

EXT.P2 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G.L.26/M/04
 DATED 08.10.2004

¶70

EXT.P3 : A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.6.2005.

Sadanandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board

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

Sathiaseelan, Vs Supriya Sudhakaran

State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector Vs Philomina,W/O Joseph@Joy

Ashtapadi Foundation Vs S.Radhakrishnan

Ayanki Muhammed Vs Vysyambath Asma

Ayanki Muhammed Vs Vysyambath Asma

Dr.Louis George Vs Kanakam Thambi