Chandrasekharan K.K. v. State of Kerala and Malabar Devaswom Board and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.GIRISH`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C)NO.25503 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` CHANDRASEKHARAN K.K. AGED 62 YEARS S/O.(LATE)KITTUNNI, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, ANDATHODU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 679564 ``` ``` BY ADV K.NANDINI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, *[DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT], SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *CORRECTED. THE DESCRIPTION OF 1[ST] RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS 'REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT' INSTEAD OF 'DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT' AS PER ORDER DATED 03/08/2023 IN WP(C) 25503/2023., PIN - 695001`** - **`2 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006`** - **`3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALAPPURAM, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676101`** - **`4 THE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYUR DIVISION, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680101`** - **`5 CHANDRAN T.M. @ THATTAKATH CHANDRAN THATTAKATH HOUSE, ANDATHODE P.O., PERIYAMBALAM,`** 2 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 ``` THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 679564 ``` - **`6 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006`** - **`7 ADDL.R7: AREA COMMITTEE OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TIRUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT - 676101. ( ADDL.R7 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/08/2023 IN WP(C) 25503/2023)`** ``` 8 ADDL. R8. V.A.RAJAN, S/O. UNNI PANICKER, AGED 71 YEARS, FLAT NO 11A, ALUKKAS CASTLE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680003, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE VETTEKKORUMAKAN TEMPLE, KATTUMPURAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680590 (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R8 VIDE ORDER DATED 23-08-2023 IN IA 1/23 IN WPC) (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R8 VIDE ORDER DATED 23-08-2023 IN IA 1/23 IN WPC) ``` ``` BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN S.K.BALACHANDRAN K.M.FATHIMA N.D.DEEPA K.M.BIJU ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** The petitioner, who is an idol worshiper, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 13.06.2023 of the 3[rd] Respondent Assistant Commissioner, whereby the 5[th] respondent has been appointed as a non-hereditary trustee Sree Vettakkorumakan Temple, Kattumppuram in Chavakkad Taluk, which is a controlled institution under the 6[th] respondent Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, to appoint a qualified person, who is a worshiper in the locality, as a non-hereditary trustee in the place of the 5[th] respondent; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P4 memorandum of appeal dated 07.07.2023 filed invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, in a time bound manner and to stay the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as the non-hereditary trustee as per Ext.P1, till the final disposal of this writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the 4 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 appointment of the 5[th] respondent as a non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vettakkorumakan Temple, Kattumpuram. According to the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent is disqualified from holding that post because he is an active politician. He is the President of the Kerala Karshaka Sangam, Punnayoorkulam West, which is a farmers’ wing affiliated with the political party CPI(M). He is also functioning as the Treasurer of the Kerala Merchant Association, Chavakkad Taluk. In order to substantiate the contention that the 5[th] respondent is a person actively involved in politics, the petitioner would rely on Ext.P2 notice, Facebook post, etc. 3. On 03.08.2023 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1[st] respondent; and the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 2, 3, 4, 6 and the additional 7[th] respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 5[th] respondent, returnable by 08.08.2023. 4. After taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388]** and **Ananthanarayanan and others v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2023 SCC Online Kerala 1022]** this Court granted an interim stay of Ext.P1 order dated 13.6.2023 of the 2[nd] 5 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, insofar as it relates to the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as nonhereditary trustee of Sree Vettakkorumakan Temple. The said interim order is still in force. 5. By the order dated 23.08.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, the hereditary trustee of the temple was impleaded as the additional 8[th] respondent. In the order dated 23.08.2023, this Court noticed that the Board of Trustees of the temple consists of one hereditary trustee and four non-hereditary trustees, including the 5[th] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the selection of nonhereditary trustees in the temple, including the applications made by the respective applicants. 6. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 22.08.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 08.09.2023, producing therewith Exts.P5 to P7 as additional documents, in order to substantiate the contention regarding the disqualification of the 5[th] respondent for being appointed as a non-hereditary trustee of the temple. The 8[th] respondent hereditary trustee has filed a counter affidavit dated 12.09.2023, 6 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 which is one against the appointment of the 5[th] respondent as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. 7. On 21.09.2023, along with I.A.No.3 of 2023, the petitioner has placed on record Exts.P8 to P12 as additional documents. The 5[th] respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit, along with Ext.R5(a). On 20.10.2023, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 of 2023, to accept Ext.P15 as an additional document. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent, and the learned counsel for the 8[th] respondent. 9. In **Sreedharan Nambeesan P. v. Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board and Others [2018 (2) KLT 115]** the issue raised before a Division Bench of this Court was whether the hereditary trustee of a temple would have any right to be given notice before a non-hereditary trustee is being appointed by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, under Section 39(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held as follows; 7 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 “11. This is not to say that when the Commissioner invokes his power under Section 39(5) the Hereditary Trustee is completely divested of any say. The power vested with the Commissioner is to act fairly, judiciously and in a manner that behooves his office, being the seneschal of the various temples and institutions under his command. The power of the Commissioner being bridled by the section itself, not to act unless there is an imminent necessity to fill up the vacancies of Non-hereditary Trustee or Trustees and that too after recording such reasons in writing, show the implicit care to be invested while acting under its sanction. The vacancies are not to be filled under his whim or fancy but the Commissioner is clearly obligated to first conclude if it is necessary to do so, which can only mean to be a situation in which he thinks that the Hereditary Trustee will not be sufficient on his own to manage the affairs of the temple/institution. The competence and capability of the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees thus becomes absolutely relevant and germane when vacancies are sought to be filled up in the posts of Non-hereditary Trustees under Section 39(5) of the Act and, therefore, the issuance of a notice of such intention by the Commissioner to the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees, though not specifically mentioned in Section 39(5), will be apposite if not to be read into its provisions as a concomitant necessity to ensure fairness in procedure. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the Hereditary Trustee need not be consulted at all, while acting under Section 39(5), therefore, does not appear to be on terra firma forensically.” 10. Seeking review of the judgment in **Sreedharan** 8 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 **Nambeesan P. [2018 (2) KLT 115]** , the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board and others filed R.P.No.227 of 2018 [ **neutral Citation No: 2018:KER:17236** ], contending that the words in paragraph 11 of the said judgment would give an impression that before acting under Section 39(5) of the Act, the competent authority is obligated to obtain the concurrence of the hereditary trustee. 11. In the decision in **Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and others v. Sreedharan Nambeesan P.** **[2018:KER:17236]** the Division Bench clarified that in the judgment, what was intended was that the hereditary trustee be offered an opportunity to place his view regarding the necessity of filling up the vacancy in the office of the non-hereditary trustee. The judgment did not say that the concurrence of the hereditary trustee is necessary but only that he may be given the opportunity to state why he thinks that there is no necessity for the Commissioner to appoint a non-hereditary trustee. The Division Bench found this apposite since as per the provisions of Section 39(5) of the Act the Commissioner shall not fill up a vacancy of a non-hereditary trustee unless he considers it necessary to do so. It was in the backdrop of this particular provision that the Division Bench said that even though the 9 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 issuance of a notice to the hereditary trustee is not mandated or specifically provided under Section 39(5) of the Act, it will be desirable, to ensure fairness in procedure, that the hereditary trustee is also afforded an opportunity to place his views appropriately before final orders are passed under Section 39(5). The intention was not that the concurrence of the hereditary trustee to the proposal of the Commissioner be obtained but merely that he be given an opportunity to speak his opinion as to why he feels that there is no necessity to appoint a nonhereditary trustee in the temple. It is needless to say that since it was not the concurrence of the hereditary trustee that is required to be obtained, as per the judgment, the only obligation of the Commissioner is to afford the hereditary trustee an opportunity to say why he feels that no necessity exists for an order under Section 39(5) of the Act, so that any vital information, which is within the domain of the hereditary trustee can also be placed for his consideration. The Division Bench further clarified that the views of the hereditary trustee are not binding on the Commissioner, as per the provisions under Section 39(5) of the Act, but merely that such views can also be elicited to aid the Commissioner while he takes a decision as to whether it is necessary to fill up the vacancy. With the above 10 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 clarification, the Division Bench closed the review petition. 12. In **Gopinatha Menon (Kenathachan) v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2012:KER:16515]** a Division Bench of this Court held that recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, is not necessary to make an appointment of a nonhereditary trustee on any ground referable to the conduct of the hereditary trustee, or otherwise, when there is a scheme governing the trust, which provides, among other things, for - appointment of four non hereditary trustees. 13. In **Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388]** a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party noticed that the decision of the Division Bench in **Parameshwaran Namboothiri P.M. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2011 (2) KHC 719]** and **Sreedharan Nambissan P. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2018 (2) KLT** **115]** are in the context of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the circumstances stated in the sub- section (2), which has no application when the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in a temple is governed by the provisions under the scheme framed under Section 58 of the Act. 11 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act relates to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in temples, where there is no scheme framed in terms of Section 58 of the Act. Once such a scheme is framed, the Malabar Devaswom Board has to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance with that scheme. 14. In **Gopinatha Menon [2012:KER:16515]** the Division Bench noticed that the complaint of the petitioner, who is the Managing Trustee of the temple in question was that, the persons who are appointed as non-hereditary trustees are disqualified, as they are active politicians or those clouded by allegations referable to financial misconduct. The Division Bench observed that, even if the persons who have been selected and appointed as non-hereditary trustees have any such disqualifications, it may be open to the petitioner to move the Commissioner by pointing out such disqualifications. The Commissioner will then have to hear the petitioner and the persons against whom such allegations are made and conclude whether any such disqualification exists, warranting the removal of those persons. Therefore, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition _in limine_ , leaving that issue open. 15. In **V. Sudharsanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board** 12 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 **and others [2012:KER:24089]** , the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which one of the contention raised by the petitioners was that, the persons elected are disqualified from being appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple in question, on account of their alleged political allegiance and the fact that they are active political workers. The Division Bench noticed that the said question is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided, if any such objection is - raised. Such decision making process has to be undertaken by the appointing authority. Therefore, if any one among the petitioners has any objection or complaint in that regard, he may place it before the Malabar Devaswom Board, within a period of one month. If any such objection or complaint is received, the competent authority will issue notice to the non-hereditary trustees concerned and give him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on that issue, in accordance with law. 16. In **Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021** **(2) KLT 885]** , a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look forward to give political asylum to their workers. The Division Bench noticed that ours being a highly politically sensitive State, hardly any person can be traced, who 13 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 is completely apolitical or who may not have his own independent political views. There may be persons having permanent political ideologies or views whereas there may be equal number of persons who hold views according to the issues involved. Perhaps that may be the reason why Kerala has become a State of political swinging. The Division Bench made it clear that holding political views or sympathizing with a political denomination cannot be held a disqualification for nominating anyone to such a post. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench held that “even assuming that respondents 7 to 9 have some political leaning or rather they are sympathizers of a political party, that fact will not disentitle them to be considered for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. There is clear distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active participation in the activities of the party. The taboo under sub-clause (g) of clause 3 of the notification issued by the Commissioner will be attracted only if respondents 7 to 9 are active politicians or are office bearers of a political party, for which absolutely no evidence is forthcoming. ## 17. In **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** , this Court held that the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the notification issued by the Commissioner, make it explicitly clear that, for 14 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. Therefore, it is for the Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure that any appointment made as non-hereditary trustee of the temples under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board is strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in similar notifications. If found necessary, the format of the application for appointment as a non-hereditary trustee in the temple under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board has to be modified in an appropriate manner, by requiring the applicant to furnish particulars in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses in similar notifications. The Commissioner was directed to take necessary steps in this regard, if found necessary, after placing before the Malabar Devaswom Board, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date 15 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. 18. In judgment dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.29279 of 2023 this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by this Court in **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** , for appointment as non-hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire appointment as non-hereditary trustees of TTK Devaswom. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent Commissioner has to ensure that any appointments made as non-hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, are strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in Ext.P1 notification dated 10.07.2023. 19. In **Anantha Narayanan and another v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2023 KLT OnLine 1195 : 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1022]** , a Division Bench of this Court in 16 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, held that when clause 3(7) of Ext.R6(a) notification issued by the Commissioner for appointment as non-hereditary trustees in the temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, is considered in the light of the interpretation given by this Court in **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** , no person actively involved in politics is eligible to be appointed as a non-hereditary trustee in a temple. ## 20. In **Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]** the Division Bench noticed that the _Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary_ defines ‘politician’ as “a person whose job is concerned with politics, especially as an elected member of the Parliament, etc.” Such a technical meaning of the word ‘politician’ cannot be accepted to understand clause 3(7) in Ext.R6(a) notification which says that active politicians or persons holding official posts in any political party are ineligible. The terms are used disjunctively. So persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they hold any post in a political party, are ineligible. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that respondents 6 to 8 therein have no case that they have any other profession. It is a matter of common knowledge that the functioning of a political party and 17 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 selection/election of its office bearers is not similar to public employment. Whichever be the political party, one who is actively involved in the activities of that political party alone is ordinarily selected/elected as an office bearer. Having been selected as office bearers of the political party/DYFI before or soon after the appointment as non-hereditary trustees, respondents 6 to 8 cannot contend that they were not active politicians. In constitution of DYFI [Ext.R6(e)], it is stated that a member of the DYFI can work in any political party. That does not mean that the DYFI does not have any political colour. Whether or not it has any affiliation to any particular political party, what is evident from the constitution is that the area of activities of DYFI is politics and related activities. As such it cannot be said that the activities of DYFI are non-political. ## 21. In **Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]** the Division Bench noticed that, going by the parameters prescribed in notification [Ext.R6(a)], persons who are convicted for more than six months for offences involving moral turpitude are alone ineligible to be non-hereditary trustees. It is, however, specifically prescribed in Ext.R6(a) that persons who apply to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees shall be idol worshippers and persons having an interest in the advancement of the 18 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 temple. They should also be persons used to be involved in the affairs of the temple. A person having reverence and adoration for a deity can alone be treated as a worshipper. A person facing criminal prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a person to be appointed as a trustee in a temple. A trustee is a person obligated to conduct temple affairs in accordance with custom or usage. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court explained the diligence and devotion a trustee of a temple should have. When those are the necessary qualifications required for a person to be appointed as a nonhereditary trustee, and the danger of appointing unqualified and untrustworthy persons as trustees, the Malabar Devaswom Board shall stipulate the eligibility criteria in consonance with that. Therefore, the Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to take a decision in that regard before proceeding with any new appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the temples under it. 22. In the instant case, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 revision petition dated 20.09.2023 before the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions under Section 18 of 19 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 the Act, against Ext.P1 order dated 13.06.2023 of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Commissioner, to the extent of appointing the 5[th] respondent as the non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vettakkorumakan Temple, Kattumpuram. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said revision petition has already been numbered as RP No.9 of 2023, which is listed before the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner on 08.11.2023. The petitioner shall pursue that revision petition before the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner. 23. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner to consider and pass appropriate orders on R.P.No.9 of 2023, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above, with notice to the petitioner, 5[th] respondent and also the additional 8[th] respondent and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, 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. Till such time, the interim order granted by this Court on 03.08.2023 shall continue to be in force. 24. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order dated 21.0 9.2023 of this Court read thus: 20 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 “5.On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that there is no Vigilance Wing and Land Conservancy Unit in Malabar Devaswom Board. Despite the directions issued by this Court in an earlier order, the State is yet to take a decision on the request made by the Malabar Devaswom Board to have an independent Land Conservancy Unit.” (underline supplied) 25. The Senior Government Pleader would submit that the files relating to the formation of a Vigilance Wing and a Land Conservancy Unit in Malabar Devaswom Board are still under circulation. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the 1[st] respondent State to take an appropriate decision on the formation of a Vigilance Wing and a Land Conservancy Unit in Malabar Devaswom Board, after convening a joint meeting with the members of Malabar Devaswom Board and also 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G.GIRISH, JUDGE** Sdk+ 21 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25503/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** |**`EXHIBIT- P1`**|**`TRUE`**<br>**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`ORDER`**| |---|---| ||**`NO.A4/263/2023(MDB),OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`3RD`**| ||**`RESPONDENT, DATED 13/6/2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT-P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE PARTY POSTER/NOTICE`**| ||**`HAILING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS THE`**| ||**`CPI(M) THANGALPADY BRANCH SECRETARY`**| |**`EXHIBIT-P2(A)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE POSTER/NOTICE SHOWING`**| ||**`THE`**<br>**`NAME`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`5TH`**<br>**`RESPONDENT`**<br>**`AS`**| ||**`PRESIDENT OF KARSHAKA SANGHAM,`**| |**`EXHIBIT-P2(B)`**|**`TRUE`**<br>**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`POSTER/NOTICE`**| ||**`DEPICTING`**<br>**`5TH`**<br>**`RESPONDENT`**<br>**`IS`**<br>**`THE`**| ||**`TRUASSURER`**<br>**`IN`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`MERCHANTS`**| ||**`ASSOCIATION`**| |**`EXHIBIT- P2(C)`**|**`TRUE`**<br>**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`POSTER/NOTICE`**| ||**`DEPICTING`**<br>**`5TH`**<br>**`RESPONDENT`**<br>**`IS`**<br>**`THE`**| ||**`CHAIRMAN IN SREE VETTEKKARAN TEMPLE,`**| ||**`PERIYAMBALAM`**| |**`EXHIBIT- P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM`**| ||**`THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| ||**`DATED 6/7/2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT-P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED`**| ||**`7/7/2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT- P6`**|**`TRANSCRIPTION OF EXTS-P5 IN MALAYALAM`**| |**`EXHIBIT-P7`**|**`TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VETTEKKAREN`**| ||**`TEMPLE AND ITS PREMISES.`**| |**`EXHIBIT- P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE CC TV NEWS ITEM IN`**| ||**`THE`**<br>**`YOUTUBE`**<br>**`SHARED`**<br>**`BY`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`5TH`**| ||**`RESPONDENT ON HIS FACEBOOK PAGE DATED`**| ||**`19/6/2022 IN C.D. FORM.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM`**| ||**`THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`**| 22 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 ``` DATED 31/7/23 ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 20/9/2023, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMME BROCHURE FOR THE VETTEKKARAN PATTU MAHOTSAVAM, DATED 29/5/2022 ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMMED BROCHURE FOR THE VETTEKKARAN PATTU MAHOTSAVAM, DTD. 29/5/2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAF FROM THE DONATION COUPON BOOK FOR THE VETTEKKARANPATTU MAHOTSAVAM, DATED 29/5/23 ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT DATED 21/9/2023 SHOWING PAYMENT VIDE GOOGLE PAY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT FROM A DEVOTEE. ``` ``` EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DONATION RECEIPT NO.106, DATED 27/5/23, ISSUED TO ONE THADAGAM KUNHIMON HAJI. ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P14(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DONATION RECEIPT NO.104, FOR RS.5,000/-, ISSUED TO ONE SURESH BIDAYINI, DATED 27/5/2023. ``` ``` EXHIBIT- P14(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DONATION RECEIPT NO.107, FOR RS.10,000/-, ISSUED TO ONE PRADEEP MAMBRA, DATED 27/5/2023. ``` ``` EXHIBIT -P15 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE MESSAGE FROM 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VIA WHATSAPP DATED 13/5/23 ``` 23 W.P.(C)No.25503 of 2023 ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(A). ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.421 ALONG WITH ITS COUNTER-FOIL, OF KATTUPURAM VETTAYKKARAN TEMPLE PATTU MAHOLSAVAM HELD ON 29-05-2023. ```