Allowed

Subhash G. v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022WP(C)/26568/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that an order extending a Temple Advisory Committee's term by six months was unsustainable as no developmental work was entrusted prior to the extension, violating statutory limits. The extension was quashed, and a meeting for new elections was directed within one week.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022 setting aside for violating Sunil Kumar C. The 3rd respondent to convene a meeting for new elections within one week to be completed within 45 days.

Subhash G. Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board — Property and Title | 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

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 26568 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SUBHASH G., AGED 48 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, SUMA VILASAM, KIZHAKKEKKARA, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506.

¶9

2 SMITHA RAVI, AGED 35 YEARS D/O.RAVI, BABITHA MANDIRAM, KIZHAKKEKKARA, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506.

¶10

BY ADV T.S.ANURAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶13

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶14

3 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 506.

¶15

4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER KOTTARAKARA SRI MAHA GANAPATI TEMPLE, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 506.

¶16

-2-

¶17

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶18

5 THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
KOTTARAKARA SRI MAHA GANAPATI TEMPLE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALSALA KUMARI,
KANNAMKONNAM VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKRA, KOTTARAKARA
P.O., KOLLAM - 691 506.

¶19

6 R.ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
KOTTARAKARA SRI MAHA GANAPATI TEMPLE, MUKULUVILA
VEEDU, PADIYATHEKARA, KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM -
691 506.

¶20

BY ADVS.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

-3-

¶23

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶26

The petitioners, who are devotees of Lord Ganapathy of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple (P.D. Manikandeswaram Devaswom), have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022 issued by respondents 1 and 2 extending the term of the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple for a further period of six months. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to dissolve the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee forthwith and constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee as early as possible according to law.

¶27

On 29.08.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 5 and 6, returnable by 01.09.2022.

¶28

-4-

¶29

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions.

¶31

On 01.09.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to file counter affidavit. By the order dated 01.09.2022, this Court granted interim stay of the operation of Ext.P3 order for a period of one month, since a reading of the said order would not show that any development work in Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple (P.D. Manikandeswaram Devaswom) commenced prior to the issuance of the said order.

¶32

Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 22.09.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Respondents 5 and 6 have filed counter affidavit dated 20.09.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) and R6(b) documents.

¶33

On 23.09.2022, respondents 5 and 6 filed an interlocutory application, i.e, I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking an order to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on

¶34

-5-

¶35

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶36

01.09.2022. On 28.09.2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022, this Court passed a detailed order. Paragraph 10 of that order reads thus;

¶37

“10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, we find no reason to vacate the order dated 01.09.2022. However, considering the fact that Navarathri Festival in Kottarakkara Sri Maha Ganapathi Temple has already commenced and the 4^th respondent Administrative Officer has not made any alternative arrangements by constituting an Ad-Hoc committee, we deem it appropriate to direct respondents 3 and 4 to permit the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee to function as Ad-Hoc Committee for the limited purpose of conducting Navarathri Festival for the period from 27.09.2022 to 05.10.2022. This will be subject to the condition that the entire monetary matters will be dealt with by the 4^th respondent Administrative Officer.”

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶39

learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, representing respondents 1 to 4, and also the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

¶40

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ

¶41

petition is as to whether Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022 of the

¶42

-6-

¶43

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶44

1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board extending the term of the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple (P.D.

¶45

Manikandeswaram Devaswom) by a further period of six months is sustainable in law.

¶46

As already noticed in the order dated 28.09.2022, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022, the case put forward by respondents 5 and 6 is that the Temple Advisory Committee is prepared to undertake the repair work

¶47

of the Sreekovil, since there were no takers when tenders were invited nearly six times. In such circumstances, the Board, by Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022, granted extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a period of

¶48

six months. Further, Navarathri Festival in Kottarakkara Sri Maha Ganapathi Temple commenced on 27.09.2022, which is upto 05.10.2022. The activities in connection with the said festival are being undertaken by the Temple Advisory Committee. In view of the order of stay granted by this Court on 01.09.2022 and in the absence of an alternative arrangement made by the 4^th respondent Administrative

¶49

-7-

¶50

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶51

Officer, a modification of the interim order of stay is highly essential.

¶52

Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu

¶53

Religious Institutions Act, 1950 deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per subsection (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name ‘Temple Advisory Committee’ (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board.

¶54

As per Clause (11) of the Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date

¶55

-8-

¶56

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶57

of approval of the Committee by the Department. The Devaswom Commissioner is empowered to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year on the ground of any development works or unavoidable rituals. On the aforesaid grounds the Travancore Devaswom

¶58

Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended beyond two years.

¶59

In Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board

¶60

[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. 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-

¶61

-9-

¶62

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶63

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 office of Temple Advisory Committees in the approved byelaws 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

¶64

-10-

¶65

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶66

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.

¶67

In Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KLT 324] this

¶68

Court held that, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (2) and Clause (11) of the Rules, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act. The term of the Temple Advisory Committee is two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner, who has the authority to extend the term by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board has the power to extend the term by a further period of one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. In view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11) of the Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee

¶69

-11-

¶70

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶71

cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. In view of the prohibition contained in clause (18), a person, who is an office bearer or 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

¶72

in Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379] the power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend 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 term has to be given or not.

¶73

13. By the order dated 28.09.2022, this Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to permit the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee to function as Ad-Hoc Committee for the limited purpose of conducting Navarathri Festival for the period from 27.09.2022 to 05.10.2022, considering the fact that Navarathri Festival in Kottarakkara Sri Maha Ganapathi

¶74

-12-

¶75

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶76

Temple has already commenced and the 4^th respondent Administrative Officer has not made any alternative arrangements by constituting an Ad-Hoc committee. The said order was subject to the condition that the entire monetary matters will be dealt with by the 4^th respondent Administrative Officer.

¶77

14. On 2 8.09.2022, during the course of arguments,

¶78

on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 fairly submitted that the Temple Advisory Committee is yet to execute agreement/contract in

¶79

respect of repair work of Sreekovil. The Board is yet to pass orders granting sanction to entrust the said work to the Temple Advisory Committee.

¶80

As can be seen from the 7^th paragraph of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, the Chief Engineer, vide letter dated 20.06.2022 directed the Executive Engineer to revise the estimate passed on Current Schedule Rate-DSR 2018 including GST and accordingly revised estimate was submitted to the Chief Engineer on 16.08.2022 for an amount of Rs.45,10,000/(Rs.38,19,799/+

¶81

-13-

¶82

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶83

Rs.6,87,780/- for GST). Therefore, it is evident that the extension of the term of the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee vide Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022 of the 1^st respondent Board, invoking the provisions under Clause (11) of the Rules, was made even before the said Committee was

¶84

entrusted with any developmental work, openly flouting the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663] . In the above circumstances, we find no reason to sustain Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022 of the 1^st respondent Board.

¶85

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022 of the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby the term of the 5^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple (P.D. Manikandeswaram Devaswom) was extended by a further period of six months, openly flouting the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663] . The 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner shall convene a meeting of the registered mandalam, in order to elect the members of the Temple

¶86

-14-

¶87

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶88

Advisory Committee of Kottarakkara Sree Maha Ganapathy Temple (P.D. Manikandeswaram Devaswom). Necessary steps in this regard shall be commenced, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the entire exercise shall be completed, after complying with the statutory requirements, within a period of 45 days. In the interregnum, the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner shall constitute Ad-hoc Committee, if found necessary, for the limited purpose of conducting any temple festival, subject to the condition that the Ad-hoc Committee shall not consist of any members of the Temple Advisory Committee covered by Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2022.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶91

Sd/-

¶92

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶93

AV/20/10

¶94

-15-

¶95

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶96

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26568/2022

¶97

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶98

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE BY-LAWS VIDE FINAL` `NOTIFICATION DATED 30/11/2011 ISSUED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS` `HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.5855/2021` `DATED 9/4/2021.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY` `THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 DATED 6/8/2022.`

¶99

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶100

`Exhibit-R1(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TENDERS DATED 14/` `E-TENDER PORTAL I` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEE`	`NOTICE INVITING E-` `10/2020 PUBLISHED IN` `SSUED BY THE` `R, TRIVANDRUM.`
`Exhibit-R1(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TENDERS DATED 01/` `E-TENDER PORTAL I` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEE`	`NOTICE INVITING E-` `01/2021 PUBLISHED IN` `SSUED BY THE` `R, TRIVANDRUM.`
`Exhibit-R1(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TENDERS DATED 29/` `E-TENDER PORTAL I` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEE`	`NOTICE INVITING E-` `10/2021 PUBLISHED IN` `SSUED BY THE` `R, TRIVANDRUM.`
`Exhibit-R1(d)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TENDERS DATED 16/` `E-TENDER PORTAL I` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEE`	`NOTICE INVITING E-` `12/2021 PUBLISHED IN` `SSUED BY THE` `R, TRIVANDRUM.`
`Exhibit-R1(e)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `TENDERS DATED 29/` `E-TENDER PORTAL I` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEE`	`NOTICE INVITING E-` `01/2022 PUBLISHED IN` `SSUED BY THE` `R, TRIVANDRUM.`

¶101

-16-

¶102

W.P.(C). No.26568 of 2022

¶103

Exhibit-R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDERS DATED 02/04/2022 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING E-
TENDERS DATED 11/05/2022 PUBLISHED IN
E-TENDER PORTAL ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit-R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
13/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKARA TO
THE SECRETARY.
Exhibit R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE THANTHRI OF SRI KOTTARAKARA
MAHA GANAPATHY TEMPLE TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 04/07/2020
Exhibit R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ASSISTANT 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ESTIMATE
SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

Subhash G. v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash G. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.V. Ravikumar Vs State of Kerala

Veena Sukumaran Nair Vs v. Harikrishnan

Jubimol Majo Vs Jose

John Cherian Vs a Suresh Kumar @ Sureshkumar

Anil Kumar R., Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Sivadasan Vs Latha