Allowed

M.P. Sadanandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC13 Jul 2023WP(C)/2795/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition against the Travancore Devaswom Board granting permission for videography. The Court set aside the decision as it ignored unique temple customs prohibiting weddings and aromatic flowers, and ordered the Board to fence the unfenced land.

What did the court decide?

Permission for videography was cancelled; the Board was directed to fence the unfenced boundary of the temple land with barbed wire.

M.P. Sadanandan Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶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

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO.2795 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 M.P. SADANANDAN, MAROTTIPARAMBIL, IRINGOL P. O., PERUMBAVOOR683548, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2 M.B.SURENDRA MENON, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, IRINGOL P. O., PERUMBAVOOR,PIN683548, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.
R.KRISHNA RAJ
E.S.SONI
KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR
RESMI A.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶14

3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRIKKARIYOOR DEVASWOM, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.

¶15

4 SUB-GROUP OFFICER, IRINGOL DEVASWOM, IRIGOLE KAVU ROAD, RAYAMANGALAM, KERALA-683545.

¶16

5 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶19

695003.

¶20

6 ADDL.R6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542. [IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 07.06.2022 IN WP(C)2795/2022.]

¶21

7 ADDL.R7. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & HEAD FOREST FORCE, FORESET HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶22

8 ADDL.R8. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN (KERALA), BIO-DIVERSITY CELL, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014 [ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R7 AND R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 23.06.2022 IN WP(C)2795/2022.]

¶23

BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SRI S.RAJMOHAN – SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

SRI G SANTHOSH KUMAR- STANDING COUNSEL-TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶32

The petitioners, who are devotees of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu), which is a temple under the management of the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021 of the Secretary of 1^st respondent Board addressed to the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the 2^nd respondent was informed about the permission granted by the Board for videography in the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple, following the customary practices in the said temple; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Board to take appropriate steps to see that the public has no access in the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy other than for the purpose of worship; a writ of mandamus commanding 1^st respondent Board to survey the property of Iringole Kavu Devaswom and preserve the same by evicting the encroachments; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Board to preserve the Irigole Sree Bhagavathy Temple and protect the same from encroachments and unauthorised entry, by

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶35

constructing compound wall on all the four sides and erecting gates at eastern and western sides, and to take effective steps to prevent unauthorised entry of persons into the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple, otherwise that for worshipping; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Board to appoint sufficient number of security staff to prevent unauthroised entry of persons into the temple premises.

¶36

Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1^st petitioner was a Member of the Temple Advisory Committee of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple and at present, he is a member of Mela Aswadaka Samithi, an unregistered organisation constituted by the devotees of the temple. Iringole Kavu Temple is a temple belonging to Nagancherry Mana and the Karanavar of the Mana is the Ooralan of the temple. The myth behind the temple is that the Deity in the temple is goddess Yoga Nidra or Maya, who was the baby girl replaced in place of Lord Krishna, the 8^th son of Devaki and Vasudeva, to save him from Kamsa. It is believed that when Kamsa lifted the baby furiously to kill her, the baby escaped miraculously and became a supernatural power and remained in the atmosphere. At that time, all the Gods and Goddesses appeared and showered flowers and it is believed that

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶39

the above baby, who was goddess Yoga Nidra or Maya, has become the principal deity of the temple and the Gods and Goddesses who have appeared for showering flowers have become the trees surrounding the principal deity, which was formed as Kavu and therefore, the temple is called Irunnaval Kavu, which was later on named as Iringole Kavu. The incarnation of Yoga Nidra or Maya which is the Goddess of Iringole Kavu is believed to be present in the temple in the form of Saraswathi in the morning, Vana Durga in the noon and Bhadra Kali during the night. Though, there were hectares of land belonging to the temple, at present Iringole Kavu temple has only an extent of around 56 Acres. Nobody knows the exact extent of property the temple has and utilising this situation several encroachments have been made at various sides of the Kavu. The Kavu is not protected on the four sides by boundary walls and though there are four entries to the temple only two are protected with gates and these two gates were installed by the devotees. The devotees were forced to install these gates to prevent unauthorised entry of persons into the Iringole Kavu Temple. There were several complaints about the same and when the Devaswom refused to heed to the request of the devotees to install gates at all four entries of the temple, the devotees

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶42

themselves have erected the gates. The Devaswom has refused permission to install gates on two other entries of the temple and even though the gates are fixed the Devaswom has directed the Temple Advisory Committee to keep open the wicket gate 24 hours a day so as to enable persons to enter the Kavu as tourists.

¶43

On 27.01.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that going by the custom prevailing in Iringole Kavu Temple, no marriage ceremonies are permitted to be conducted in the temple premises. By the order dated 27.01.2022, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021.

¶44

A counter affidavit dated 23.02.2022 has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(g) documents. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 26.05.2022, producing therewith Exts.P8 to P11 documents.

¶45

One of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition is to protect the land having an extent of around 56 Acres of Iringole Kavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple under the management of the 1^st

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶48

respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that the temple is in the midst of a forest and having an extent of 56 Acres.

¶49

By the order dated 23.06.2022, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Chief Wild Life Warden (Kerala) were impleaded as additional respondents 7 and 8.

¶50

On 08.08.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the concerned Divisional Forest Officer and also the Station House Officer, Perumbavoor propose to conduct a joint inspection for protecting Iringole Kavu Bhagavathi Temple property, which is forest land having an extent of 56 Acres.

¶51

In the order dated 08.08.2022, this Court noticed that there is no Temple Advisory Committee in Iringol Kavu Bhagavathi Temple. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it is stated that the 1^st petitioner, who was a member of the Temple Advisory Committee for more than 25 years, is presently a member of the Mela Aswadaka Samithy, which is a non-registered organisation constituted by the devotees of Iringole Kavu Bhagavathi Temple for proper administration of that temple, in the absence of the

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶54

Temple Advisory Committee. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, Ext.R1(a) representation dated 17.06.2019 of Temple Advisory Committee of Iringole Kavu Bhagavathi Temple, when the 1^st petitioner was the President of that Committee is placed on record, in which the name of the 'Travancore Devaswom Board' is used. The document marked as Ext.R1(d) would show that the 1^st petitioner has hosted a website in the name of Iringole Kavu Bhagavathi Temple, in respect of which the 4^th respondent Sub Group Officer has issued a show-cause notice. The learned standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions as to the circumstances in which no Temple Advisory Committee is constituted in Iringole Kavu Bhagavathi Temple.

¶55

On 17.08.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that steps have already been initiated for electing new members to the Temple Advisory Committee of Iringole Kavu Temple. The 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner has issued a notification on 26.07.2022 for membership in the registered mandalam. The entire exercise for constituting the Temple Advisory Committee shall be completed within a month.

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶58

The learned Standing Counsel sought time to get instructions as to whether the Board has already obtained the opinion of the Tantri on the issue involved in this writ petition.

¶59

On behalf of the additional 7^th respondent Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head Forest Force, an affidavit dated 07.11.2022 has been sworn to by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Ernakulam. Paragraph 2 of that affidavit reads thus;

¶60

“2. It is submitted that around 850 meters of boundary of above Kavu is lying unfenced. As per the guidelines related to its financial assistance to sacred groves, only barbed wire fencing is allowed to protect the sacred groves. An approximate amount of Rs.40 lakhs is required for fencing Iringole Kavu with barbed wire fencing in order to protect the sacred groves, which is quite high. A copy of satellite survey image is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R7(a).” 11. On 13.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for

¶61

consideration, this Court has passed the following order;

¶62

“The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the 3^rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner of Thrikkariyoor Devaswom proposes to convene a joint meeting with the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee of Iringole Kavu Temple on the proposal to fence the Devaswom land, based on the joint inspection conducted by the concerned Divisional

¶63

¶64

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶65

Forest Officer and the additional 6^th respondent Station House Officer. The 3^rd respondent shall also approach the Social Forestry Department for their assistance.”

¶66

On 10.04.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for

¶67

Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that as per the customary practice followed in Iringole Kavu Temple marriages are not permitted to be performed in the temple premises. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to file an additional affidavit on behalf of the 1^st respondent Board. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 4 have filed an additional affidavit dated 12.04.2023.

¶68

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned Government Pleader for the 5^th respondent and additional respondents 7 and 8.

¶69

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 the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated

¶70

¶71

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶72

Devaswoms shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Section 15A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made 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 the festivals in every temple according to its usage.

¶73

Section 31A of the Act 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

¶74

order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-

¶75

¶76

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶77

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 subsection (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, with has been approved by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2011. in DBA No. 153 of 2009.

¶78

Clause (2) of the Rules deals with objectives of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per Clause (2) of the Rules, one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department.

¶79

Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership. Clause

¶80

¶81

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶82

(3) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the membership in ‘registered mandalam’ is mainly for the devotees who are residing within a distance of 5kms from the temple, who are regular worshipers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of the Rules deal with class of persons who are entitled to get membership.

¶83

In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290] this Court held that, in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple for the devotees. Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Vellayani Devaswom and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the

¶84

¶85

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶86

Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. According to Oxford Dictionary, ‘worshipper’ is a person who shows reverence and adoration for a deity. Right to worship is a civil right, of course in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in each temple.

¶87

In Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC

¶88

491] this Court held that, i n view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are performed promptly and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of the said temple, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to

¶89

¶90

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶91

render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. In that view of the matter, the writ petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to include Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, in violation of the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial.

¶92

Regarding videography and photo shooting in Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu) for events like ‘Save the Date’, the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 is that, based on the complaint dated 19.04.2021 made by the 1^st petitioner on behalf of Mela Aswadaka Samithi, alleging videography and photo shooting against the rituals and violating the sanctity of the temple, the Board vide Ext.R1(e) order dated 27.04.2021 decided to obtain a detailed report from the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner and to stop videography and photo shooting for the events like ‘Save the Date’ for the time being till a final decision is taken by the Board. The 3^rd respondent

¶93

¶94

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶95

obtained a report from the 4^th respondent Sub Group Officer, Iringole Devaswom, on the above issue and thereafter placed Ext.R1(f) report dated 30.07.2021 before the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner. In Ext.R1(f) report, the 3^rd respondent recommended videography and photo shooting, strictly protecting the rites and rituals of the temple, without causing any harm to the environment and strictly respecting moral conduct. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent Commissioner submitted Ext.R1(g) report dated 06.11.2021 before the Board. Thereafter, the Board decided to grant permission for videography in the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu), following the customary practices in the said temple. Based on the said decision, the Secretary of the Board issued Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021 to the 2^nd respondent Commissioner, whereby the said respondent was informed about the permission granted by the Board for videography in the temple premises. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that the permission granted by the Board, as evidenced by Ext.P3 communication, is for videography in the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu), strictly complying with the rites and rituals of the said temple.

¶96

¶97

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶98

As already noticed hereinbefore, on 10.04.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that as per the customary practice followed in Iringole Kavu Temple marriages are not permitted to be performed in the temple premises. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to file an additional affidavit on behalf of the 1^st respondent Board. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 4 filed an additional affidavit dated 12.04.2023, explaining the peculiar rituals and custom being followed at Iringole Kavu Temple. In the said additional affidavit, it is stated that the Goddess of Iringole Kavu changes from Saraswati in the morning to Vanadurga in the afternoon and later in the evening becomes Bhadrakali. Unlike other temples, there are no sub-shrines at Iringole Kavu. The natives near the sacred grove consider the trees inside the forest as Gods and therefore not even a piece of wood is taken out of the forest. The major festival (pooram) of the temple is conducted from the second to the tenth of the Malayalam month of Meenam (between March and April). The main offering in the temple is ‘Sarkara Nivedyam’. Unlike other temples, at Iringole Kavu only female elephants are paraded during the festival. During processions, the effigy of the Deity is carried only by female

¶99

¶100

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶101

elephants. The rituals like Ganapathy Homam, reading of Ramayana or Kettu Nira are not performed in Iringole Kavu. Marriages are not allowed in Iringole Kavu. Unlike other temples, fragrant flowers are not offered in Iringole Kavu. Flowers like Tulsi, Lotus and Ixora Coccinea (Chethi) are only used in Iringole Kavu. Women wearing fragrant flowers are not permitted and hence the female devotees are not permitted to have darshan wearing jasmine or other aromatic flowers. During processions, the effigy of the deity is carried only by female elephants, which is a speciality of this temple.

¶102

In the additional affidavit dated 12.04.2023 filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that several tourists as well as devotees are arriving at Iringole Kavu to visit the temple and see the beautiful forest land which has an extent of 56 Acres. Most of such persons were taking photos and videos, after remitting requisite fees, which included movie shootings, serials, documentaries, etc., and the same was being done strictly in accordance with the sanctity of the temple. A few persons arriving at the spot along with professional photographers, for events like pre-marriage photo sessions, i.e., 'Save the Date' and postmarriage photography sessions, go against the sanctity of the

¶103

¶104

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶105

temple. In a few cases, the brides are accompanied by their parents. In the additional affidavit, it is stated that there is no dispute that the sanctity of the temple has to be protected, which

¶106

is clearly discernible from Ext.R1(g) report of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner.

¶107

In view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Travancore Devaswom Board has a statutory duty to arrange for the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and all the festivals in Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu) according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of the said temple, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and the conduct of festivals according to the usage. A ‘worshipper’, who shows reverence and adoration for Iringole Sree Bhagavathy, has to exercise his right to worship in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition

¶108

in Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu).

¶109

¶110

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶111

As stated in the additional affidavit dated 12.04.2023 filed by respondents 1 to 4, marriages are not permitted to be performed in Iringole Kavu. As per the customary practice, fragrant flowers are not offered in Iringole Kavu. Women wearing fragrant flowers like jasmine or other aromatic flowers are not permitted to have Darshan in Iringole Kavu. The natives near the sacred grove consider the trees inside the forest as Gods and therefore, not even a piece of wood is taken out of the forest. A reading of Ext.R1(f) report dated 30.07.2021 of the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner and Ext.R1(g) report dated 06.11.2021 of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner would make it explicitly clear that before taking a decision, as evidenced by Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021, for granting permission for videography in the premises of Iringole Kavu, the Board has not taken into consideration the peculiar rituals and custom being followed in that temple. It is based on Ext.R1(g) report of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner that the Board took a decision for granting such permission for videography, in the premises of Iringole Kavu, though it is stated in Ext.P3 communication that such permission is for videography, following the customary practices in that temple.

¶112

¶113

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶114

In the above circumstances, we find no reason to sustain the decision taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board, as evidenced by Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021 of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner, granting permission for videography in the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu).

¶115

As already noticed hereinbefore, Iringole Kavu is in the midst of a forest having an extent of 56 Acres. As stated in the affidavit dated 07.11.2022 filed on behalf of the additional 7^th respondent Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head Forest Force, around 850 meters of boundary of Iringole Kavu is lying unfenced. As per the guidelines related to financial assistance to sacred groves, only barbed wire fencing is allowed to protect the sacred groves. An approximate amount of Rs.40 lakhs is required for fencing Iringole Kavu with barbed wire fencing, in order to protect that sacred grove. A copy of satellite survey image of Iringole Kavu is marked as Ext.R7(a) in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the additional 7^th respondent.

¶116

As stated in counter affidavit dated 22.02.2022 filed by respondents 1 to 4, in Ext.R1(f) report dated 30.07.2021 of the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner before the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner the necessity for fencing Iringole Kavu

¶117

¶118

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶119

has been pointed out. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent issued a letter dated 23.10.2021 to the 5^th respondent Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board to take urgent steps to measure the property and fix the boundary so that a proper fencing could be laid for protecting Iringole Kavu. Apart from that, the 2^nd respondent issued a letter dated 23.10.2021 to the Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board to initiate steps for fencing Iringole Kavu, after fixation of boundary by the 5^th respondent Tahsildar (Land Conservancy). It is for the Travancore Devaswom Board to take necessary steps for protecting Iringole Kavu with barbed wire fencing in the boundary lying unfenced.

¶120

In the result, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the decision taken by the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, as evidenced by Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021 granting permission for videography in the premises of Iringole Sree Bhagavathy Temple (Iringole Kavu) and by directing the Board to take necessary steps for protecting Iringole Kavu with barbed wire fencing in the boundary lying unfenced.

¶121

The files relating to Ext.P3 communication dated 19.12.2021 retained by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, in terms of the order of this Court dated

¶122

¶123

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶124

24.02.2022 shall be returned to the Board.

¶125

Sd/-

¶126

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶127

Sd/-

¶128

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶129

MIN

¶130

¶131

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶132

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2795/2022

¶133

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶134

`EXHIBIT P1`	`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE` `DEVOTEES DATED 26.12.2021.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE` `DEVOTEES DATED 19.01.2020.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM` `BOARD DATED 19.12.2021`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PH0TOGRAPH DATED NIL.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PH0TOGRAPH DATED NIL.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PH0TOGRAPH DATED NIL.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE` `TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED` `15.01.2022`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE 1`^ST `PETITIONER DATED 05.12.2005`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF A COMPACT DISK CONTAINING A` `VIDEO WHICH WAS VIDEOGRAPHED DATED NIL`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `MINUTES OF THE MELASWATHAKA SAMITHI` `DATED 04.04.2021`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY` `THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE` `ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE OF THE STATE` `ASSEMBLY DATED 25.10.2021`

¶135

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶136

EXHIBIT R7 (A) A COPY OF SATELLITE SURVEY IMAGR

¶137

¶138

W.P.(C)No.2795 of 2022

¶139

`EXHIBIT R7`	`(A)` `TRUE COPY` `17.06.2019` `PETITIONER`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1`^ST
`EXHIBIT R7`	`(B)` `TRUE COPY` `16.07.2020` `PETITIONER`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1`^ST
`EXHIBIT R7`	`(C)` `TRUE COPY` `09.08.2021` `TO THE 1`^ST	`OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED` `ISSUED BY THE 4`^TH`RESPONDENT` `PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT R7`	`(D)` `TRUE COPY` `16.08.2021` `TO THE 4`^TH	`OF THE EXPLANATION DATED` `OFFERED BY THE 1`^ST`PETITIONER` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT R7`	`(E)` `TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY`	`OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2021` `THE 1`^ST`RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT R7`	`(F)` `TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED`	`OF THE REPORT DATED 30.07.2021` `BY THE 3`^RD`RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT R7`	`(G)` `TRUE COPY` `06.011.202` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE REPORT DATED` `1 SUBMITTED BY THE 2`^ND `TO THE 1`^ST`RESPONDENT`

M.P. Sadanandan v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P. 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

Dr. Radhika T. Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

Sanoj A.M. Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Rajan Vs the Secretary

Ashok Harry Pothen Vs Premlal

Thaikandy Dhanesh Vs Saju. P. John

Suo Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board - Tdb