Partly allowed

Krishnakumar C v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC26 Jul 2023WP(C)/485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered two writ petitions challenging the removal of donor nameboards at a Devaswom temple. The Court noted the Board's circular prohibiting name displays and held prior directions became unenforceable. The petitions were dismissed and allowed respectively.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(C) No. 19599 of 2020 dismissed; W.P.(C) No. 485 of 2023 allowed by quashing Ext.P2 order to the extent it related to restoration of sponsor names.

Krishnakumar C Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 19599 OF 2020

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

P.G.VIJAYAN

¶6

AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, NIRANJANA, PAZHASSI NAGAR, CHETTUPUZHA, THRISSUR.

¶7

BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, KERALA-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, KERALA-680001.

¶11

3 THE JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, NAITHALAKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.

¶12

4 A.SAJEEVAN SECRETARY, SREE NAITHILAKKAVU UPADESAKA SAMITHY, REGISTER NO.KUS.464/2020, P.O KUTTOOR, THRISSUR 680 013.*

¶13

¶14

¶15

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SRI K.P.SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSELCOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ADDL.R4 BY BY ADV V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.07.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).485/2023, THE COURT ON 26.07.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶23

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 485 OF 2023

¶24

PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 KRISHNAKUMAR C

¶26

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O M. RAVUNNI NAIR, CHEERATH PUTHEN PURAYIL, KUTOOR PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680013.

¶27

2 SAJEEVAN A., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O C. SREEDHARA MENON, AMMATH HOUSE, KUTOOR PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680013.

¶28

3 MANOJ M., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN NAIR, MANGHAT HOUSE, KUTOOR PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680013.

¶29

BY ADVS.

¶30

V.M.SYAM KUMAR SNEHA RAJIV KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS

¶31

RESPONDENTS:

¶32

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND N, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001.

¶33

2 SECRETARY

¶34

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND N, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶37

3 JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, (NEYATHALAKKAVU DEVASWOM)

¶38

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND N, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001.

¶39

4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND N, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001.

¶40

5 P. G. VIJAYAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, NIRANJANA,PAZHASSI NAGAR, CHETTUPUZHA, THRISSUR , PIN-680 012.*

¶41

6 SASIKUMAR , S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, AMBAL STORES, KUTOOR PO, THRISSUR - 680 013.*

¶42

7 TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NAITHALAKAVU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE NAITHALAKAVU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, KUTTOOR, THRISSUR, KERALA , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.*

¶43

*ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02-02-2023 IN IA 1/2023. BY ADVS. R1 TO R4 BY SRI K.P.SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSELCOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R5 BY K.MOHANAKANNAN R6 BY SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R6 BY R.RAJITHA R6 BY CHITHRA S.BABU

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.07.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19599/2020, THE COURT ON 26.07.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

¶49

In W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020, the petitioner alleging that

¶50

his name engraved in the 'Thulabharam Thatthu' donated by him to the Naithanakkavilamama of Naithalakkavu Temple was illegally removed by the members of the Temple Advisory Committee and inspite of the direction in Ext. P2 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board, to restore it, they failed. They filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to implement Ext.P2 decision of the Board within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶51

While the said Writ Petition was pending consideration of this Court, three members of the Temple Advisory Committee of the Naithalakkavu Bhavathy Temple filed WP(C) No.485 of 2023 seeking a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P2 by which the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board directed the Temple Advisory Committee to restore the Board in terms of the proceedings dated 06.03.2020.

¶52

6 W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶53

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020 was impleaded in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023 as additional 5th

¶54

respondent. Additional respondent Nos.6 and 7 were also additionally impleaded.

¶55

In W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020 the Secretary of the Sree Naithalakavu Upadesaka Samithi was impleaded as additional respondent No.4.

¶56

Additional respondent No.5 in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he reiterated his contentions in his Writ Petition. He further contended that his name board was removed without the knowledge of the authorities of the Cochin Devaswom Board and it was a high-handed act.

¶57

The 6^th respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No.485 of 2023. Apart from contending that the name in the thulabhara thahhu was removed it was contended that he along with one Sri.Aravinda Ghosh donated steel grill for installing around the Balikallu in the Temple. Although his name was allowed to be engraved, the name of Sri.Aravinda

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶60

Gosh was not allowed to be engraved by the members of the Temple Advisory Committee saying that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. It has been the practice in the Temple to display boards carrying the names of the Temple Advisory Committee and also the names of persons donating various articles to the Temple. The members of the then Temple Advisory Committee quite in disregard to the said practice had disallowed to inscribe the name of Sri.Aravind Gosh.

¶61

Additional respondent No.6 produced a few photographs of boards/plaques displaying the names of the members of the Temple Advisory Committee at the Gopuram of Naithalakkavu Temple as Ext.R6(a) series. On 27.03.2023 when this matter came up for consideration, this Court directed the 1^st respondent-Cochin Devaswom Board to ensure that no such Boards or granite stones are affixed in any Temples under its management, in the names of the members of the Temple Advisory Committee.

¶62

On 13.06.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board produced the circular issued by

¶63

¶64

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶65

the Devaswom Commissioner of the Cochin Devaswom Board prohibiting erection of Boards or stones carrying the names of members of the Temple Advisory Committee in any of the Temples under the Board, to remove such boards and stones already erected and not to engrave or display names of the member of the Temple Advisory Committee or sponsors in any constructions in the Temple or articles donated.

¶66

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in the Writ Petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

¶67

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020 donated

¶68

a thulabhara stand and plate on it made of stainless steel to the Naithalakkavu Temple with his name engraved on it. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since grandson of the petitioner sustained injuries by breaking down of the thulabaram thattu, he made the donation. Since the donation has such an emotional reason, removal of his name from the thulabhara thattu was painful. It is further contended

¶69

¶70

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶71

that it has been the practice in the Temple to display the names of the persons who make donations/offerings and therefore removal of his name was a discriminative act. It was for that reason the Devaswom Board issued Ext.P2 directing to restore the name of the petitioner in the thulabhara thattu and also the name of Sri.Sasikuar, who is the additional 6^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023 in the steel grill around the Balithara.

¶72

From the materials on record it is evident that it has been a practice in the Naithalakkavu Bhagavathy Temple to erect Boards/stones displaying the names of the members by the successive Temple Advisory Committees. That fact is evident from Ext.R6(a) photographs produced in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023.

¶73

Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name 'Temple Advisory Committee' (name of the temple)

¶74

¶75

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶76

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 subsection (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.

¶77

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

¶78

¶79

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶80

functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department.

¶81

Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership. Clause (3) 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 worshippers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. As per Clause (11) of the Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall ordinarily be two years from the date of approval of the Committee by the Department.

¶82

Clause (12) of the Rules deals with powers and rights of the Devaswom Board. As per Clause (12), the Devaswom Commissioner shall have the power to determine the qualification of the members of the Advisory Committee, the term of the Advisory Committee and also to remove the members of the Committee on the basis of specific reasons. In the event of the activities of the Advisory Committee being contrary to the interest of the Temple, Hindu faith or the

¶83

¶84

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶85

Devaswom Board, or in the event of specific financial irregularities, the Commissioner shall have the absolute power to remove the Advisory Committee.

¶86

In Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore

¶87

Devaswom Board and others [Judgment dated 25.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No.7421 of 2022 - MANU/KE/1627/2022] one of the contentions raised before this Court by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 was that, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a Temple under the management of the 1^st respondent Board is outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. This Court noticed that, insofar as the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 is concerned, as per Clause (2) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees, 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 the same with

¶88

¶89

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶90

the approval of the Board. Clause (11) of the Rules provides that, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date 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 1^st respondent Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended beyond two years.

¶91

Clause (9) of the Rules deals with office bearers and their duties. Clause (9.1) deals with President, Clause (9.2) deals with Vice President, Clause (9.3.) deals with Secretary and Clause (9.4) deals with Treasurer. As per Clause (9) of the Rules, one of the duties of the President, as provided in Clause (9.1), is to formulate projects for the betterment of the temple and for the convenience of the devotees and implement the same with the approval of the

¶92

¶93

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶94

Board. The President has to supervise the collection of funds at the initiative of the Advisory Committee and he has to ensure that the functioning of the Committee is in accordance with the directions issued by the 1st respondent Board. As per Clause (9.3), the Secretary of the Committee has to get the approval of the Department for the collection of funds. He has to print coupons and keep them in safe custody after obtaining the seal of the Assistant Commissioner. He has to ensure that such coupons are used only as per the permission granted by the Board. The Secretary has to cause the accounts relating to the collection of funds, income and expenditure audited which shall be produced before the authorities in the Board before 30^th April of every year. As per Clause (9.4) of the Rules, the Treasurer has to ensure that proper accounts are maintained for the income and expenditure and that the income and expenditure of the Advisory Committee is with the approval of the Committee and with the knowledge of the President and the Secretary.

¶95

15 W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶96

In Sunil Kumar C. [MANU/KE/1627/2022] this Court held that, a reading of the provisions under Clause (9) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees makes it explicitly clear that 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 Section 31A of the Act. It would certainly be open to the Travancore Devaswom Board to undertake such construction, repair or renovation work in a temple, directly by its Maramath Department. However, when the Board has chosen to undertake such construction or repair or renovation work in a temple through a committee, under the supervision of the officials in Maramath Department, it has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act, under constant supervision and scrutiny by the concerned officers of the 1st respondent Board, in order to ensure that the activities of the committee are in compliance with the

¶97

¶98

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶99

directions issued by the Board. When the provisions under Section 31A of the Act contemplate constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee in the temples under the management of the Board, which is assigned with various duties as per the said Rules, which includes undertaking various developmental activities in the temple, the normal rule is that any developmental activity in a temple, which is not undertaken directly by the 1^st respondent Board through its officials in the Maramath Department, has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee.

¶100

A temple is a place where devotees come to offer their prayers to the deity. In the Temple, there can be payers, offerings and performance of rites and ceremonies, in accordance with the practice prevailing in the Temple. A Temple Advisory Committee is constituted in a Temple in terms of the provisions of Section 31A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act with the objective of rendering help in the performance of traditional rites and ceremonies in the Temple. Of course, as stated above

¶101

¶102

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶103

construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a Temple also becomes part of the duties of Temple Advisory Committees in the circumstances mentioned above. When members of a Temple Advisory Committee carry out construction, repair or renovation work in a Temple as a part of their duties, they are obliged to discharge such duties with dedication and devotion without expecting any return. Displaying their names in the Temple premises for discharging their duties is certainly against the objective for which a Temple Advisory Committee is constituted.

¶104

Similarly, a devotee donates articles or materials to the Temple or sponsor some construction, repair, modification, etc. in a Temple, can only be out of his/her devotion to the Deity and not for garnering any benefit out of it. A person making donation or sponsorship insisting to display his name on such articles/materials donated or construction/repair/ maintenance carried out, only belittle the solemn act he or she does. The Cochin Devaswom Board with such an intention

¶105

¶106

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶107

had issued the circular dated 01.06.2023 which reads,-

¶108

“OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶109

Round North, Thrissur-680 001

¶110

PH: 2331124, 2327028 FAX: 2335874, 2327029 E-mail. admin @cochindevaswomboard.org

¶111

No.A5.13782/19 Dated: 01/06/2023

¶112

CIRCULAR

¶113

വവഷയയ : ക��ചവൻ ദ�വസ�യ ദ��ർഡ� ദ�ത�ങളവൽ ദ�ത� ഉപദ�ശ� സമവ�വയ�ക� ദപര� ക��തവയ

¶114

ഫല�ങൾ സ�പവക�ന സയഗ�വ.

¶115

സസചന : 1. BP A5.13782/19 dt.06/03/2020.

¶116

�ഹ�.ഹഹദക��വയ�ക� 27/03/2023 കല WPC No.485/23 ഉതരവ�

¶117

�ഹ�.ഹഹദക��വയ�ക� ദമൽ സസചന(2) ഉതരവ� തപ��രയ ക��ചവൻ ദ�വസ�യ ദ��ർഡവന�ക. ദ�ത�ങളവൽ എവവക�കയങവല�യ ദ�ത� ഉപദ�ശ� സമവ�വയ�ക� ദപര� ക��തവ ഫല�ങദള� ദ��ർഡ��ദള� ഉക1ങവൽ ആയ�� മ�റ�ന�വന� ആവശ4മ�യ ന�പ�വ�ൾ സ�5�രവക�വ�ന�യ ദമലവൽ ഭകർ സമർപവക�ന വസ:�കൾ നവർമവ�വ�ളവൻ ദമദല� സ�ദപ�ൺസ.�ദ�ദയ� ഉപദ�ശ�സമവ�വ അയഗങള�ദ�ദയ� ദപദര� മറ� വവവരങദള� ദരഖകപ��തവ ദ��ർഡ��ൾ/ഫല�ങൾ തപ�ർശവപവക�വ�ൻ പ��വല എന വവവരയ അ.വയവക�ന�.

¶118

(By Order)

¶119

Sd/-

¶120

Assistant Commissioner (Audit) For Devaswom Commissioner”

¶121

21. In view of the direction in the Circular, Ext.R1(a)

¶122

produced in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023, it is quite clear that no member of the Temple Advisory Committees in various Temples

¶123

¶124

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶125

under the Board or the persons making offerings, donations or sponsorship shall have a right to get their names engraved or exhibited on the articles donated, work carried our or in any other form. Therefore, Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020 and

¶126

Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023, as far it relates to the restoration of the name board is concerned, became unenforceable. The inevitable consequence is that the relief claimed in W.P.(C) No.1959 of 2020 is liable to be declined and the relief claimed in W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023 to quash Ext.P2 is liable to be granted.

¶127

Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.19599 of 2020 is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.485 of 2023 is allowed by quashing Ext.P2 order No.A5.13782/2019 dated 06.03.2020 of the Cochin Devaswom Board in so far it relates to restoration of the

¶128

names of sponsors is concerned.

¶129

Sd/-

¶130

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶131

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶132

dkr

¶133

20 W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶134

¶135

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶136

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 31.01.2020.

¶137

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2020.

¶138

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶139

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 17.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶140

¶141

W.P.(C) Nos.19599 of 2020 & 485 of 2023

¶142

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 485/2023

¶143

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶144

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. A5.13782 OF 2019, DTD.06.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶145

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5 A5.13782 OF 2019 DTD.27.12.2022

¶146

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. NIL ISSUED BY SRI. P.G. VIJAYAN TO THE THEN TEMPLE WELFARE COMMITTEE

¶147

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 06.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶148

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶149

EXHIBIT ADDLR6(A) COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPH OF NAME BOARDS AFFIXED ON THE GOPURAM OF THE TEMPLE EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. A5. 13782/19 DATED 01.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

Krishnakumar C v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar C v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Vikraman Pillai, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer /Sub Collector

Travancore Devaswom Board - Tdb Vs Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit

Sree Parasuramaswamy Kshethra Vikasana Samithy Vs the Secretary, Travancored Devaswom Board

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director for Local Fund Accounts

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala