DBP No.94 of 2023 (In the matter of Travancore Devaswom Board - Guruvayur Devaswom)

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` DBP NO.94 OF 2023 ``` ``` IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB ``` ``` PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG. ``` ``` ------------ ``` ## _**`INSTRUCT GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM TO REINTRODUCE ONLINE BOOKING`**_ ``` FACILITY FOR FREE DARSHAN TO PILGRIMS ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SUO MOTU (*CORRECTED) ``` ``` *CORRECTED AS- SRI.P.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, PUNNASSERY MANA, (KTN 313), KOTHAKULANGARA, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 572 MOB: 9446749780, 7306537523 *[NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT IS SHOWN AS PETITIONER IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF DBP AS PER ORDER DATED 20/09/2023 IN DBP.NO.94/2023] ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** ``` 2GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680101 ``` ``` 3DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM AUDIT, ``` ``` 2 ``` DBP No.94 of 2023 ``` GURUVAYUR, PIN - 680101 ``` ``` SRI P.N.RADHAKRISHNAN - PARTY -IN- PERSON ``` ``` SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI T.K. VIPINDAS- STANDING COUNSEL- GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE ``` ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 ``` DBP No.94 of 2023 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This DBP was registered _suo motu_ , based on a complaint dated 12.07.2023 made by the petitioner-complainant for the re-introduction of the online booking facility for free darshan to pilgrims/devotees in Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple. 2. On 20.09.2023, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee sought time to get instructions. 3. On 11.10.2023, when this matter was taken up for consideration, the complainant was personally present in Court. The learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee submitted that the request made by the petitioner has already been turned down by the Managing Committee, which met on 26.06.2023, vide decision No.61, and a copy of that decision has already been forwarded to the complainant on 10.07.2023. 4. On behalf of the 2[nd] respondent-Managing Committee, an affidavit dated 17.10.2023 has been sworn to by the Administrator, producing therewith Ext.R2(a) decision No.61 ``` 4 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 of the Managing Committee on the request made by the petitioner, which reads thus; “ഗുരുവായൂർ ദേവസ്വം ഭരണസ്മിതിയുടെ 26.06.2023 ടെ 61-ആം ന്ᩘർ തീരുമാന്ᩈിന്റെ ദനർപകർ്ᩔ് ## തീരുമാനം 61 ഗുരുവായൂർ ദേത്ത്ᩈിൽ സ്ൗജനയ േർശന്ᩈിന് ഓൺലെൻ റിസ്ർദവഷൻ പുനരാരംഭി്കു്രതിനായി ത്ശി.പി.എൻ. . രാധാകൃഷ്ണൻ ആെുവ എ്രവർ ബഹു ദേവസ്വം മത്രി മുഖാരരം അദപേ സ്മർ്ᩔി്ᨴി്ᨾു്ᩂ്. ആയത് പരിദശാധി്ᨴ ഭരണസ്മിതി സ്ൗജനയ േർശന ബു്കിങ് പുനരാരംഭി്കു്രത് അദപേ സ്ംബ്യി്ᨴ ഇദ്ᩔാൾ പരിഗണിദ്ക്ᩂതിടെെ്രു തീരുമാനി്ᨴു. (B2-4480/2021) **==> picture [100 x 30] intentionally omitted <==** 5. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 27.11.2023, explaining the facts and circumstances. 6. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Management Committee. 7. The properties belonging to Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur, and the income derived therefrom, including the endowments and offerings are vested in the deity, Lord Guruvayurappan, a perpetual minor. A reading of the preamble of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 will clearly show that the authorities constituted under the said Act, especially the ``` 5 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, the Administrator and the Commissioner are enjoined with the duty to administer, control and manage the affairs of the Temple, its properties and endowments. 8. Section 10 of the Act deals with the duties of the Committee. As per clause (a) of Section 10, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it shall be the duty of the Committee, subject to the custom and usage in the Temple, to arrange for the proper performance of the rites and ceremonies in the Temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto in accordance with the dittam or scale of expenditure fixed for the temple and the subordinate temples under Section 20 or, till the dittam or scale of expenditure is fixed under that Section, in accordance with the dittam or scale of expenditure fixed for the Temple and the subordinate temples under Section 51 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951; as per clause (b) of Section 10, to provide facilities for the proper performance of worship by the worshippers; (d) to ensure maintenance of order and discipline and proper hygienic conditions in the temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto and of proper standard of ``` 6 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 cleanliness and purity in the offerings made therein; and (g) to do all such things as may be incidental and conducive to the efficient management of the affairs of the Devaswom and the convenience of the worshippers. 9. A reading of the provisions under the Guruvayur Devaswom Act would make it explicitly clear that the role assigned to the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the said Act is that of a trustee in management of the properties vested in the deity. The Managing Committee, which functions as a trustee, is bound to administer, control and manage the properties belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom in accordance with the public interest and in the interest of the worshippers. 10. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore ``` 7 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500/- on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500/-, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in ``` 8 ``` DBP No.94 of 2023 Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 11. In **Hindu Seva Kendram, Rep. by its Treasurer v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (3) KHC SN 8 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1708 : 2022:KER:15165]** a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was ``` 9 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 a party held that in view of the provisions under Guruvayur Devaswom Act, the authorities constituted under the said Act, namely, the Managing Committee and the Administrator are enjoined with duty to administer, control and manage the affairs of Guruvayur Devaswom, its properties and endowments. The role assigned to the Managing Committee is that of a trustee in the management of the properties vested in the deity. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **M.V.Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , considering the fiduciary position as the trustee, it is the duty and obligation of the Managing Committee to be faithful to the Devaswom and deal with its properties, both movable and immovable, with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. 12. Ext.R2(a) decision taken by the Managing Committee on dated 26.06.2023 is one made without notice to the petitioner/complainant. The reason for not considering the request made by the petitioner/complainant is not discernible from Ext.R2(a) decision No.61 of the Managing Committee. ## 13. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union** **[(1971) 1 All ER 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the ``` 10 ``` DBP No.94 of 2023 giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120]** it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 14. In **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court held that public orders publicly made, in the exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 15. Following the principle laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court has reiterated in **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner** **[(1978) 1 SCC 405]** that when a statutory functionary makes ``` 11 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 15. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, Ext.R2(a) decision No.61 taken by the Managing Committee on 26.06.2023 warrants interference, since the validity of such an order has to be judged by the reasons mentioned therein, which cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit dated 17.10.2023 filed on behalf of the Managing Committee by its Administrator. In such circumstances, this DBP is disposed of by setting aside Ext.R2(a) decision No.61 taken by the 2[nd] respondent Managing Committee on 26.06.2023, on the aforesaid ground, and the 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider the request made by the petitioner/complainant for re-introduction of the online booking facility for free darshan to pilgrims/devotees in Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple and take an appropriate decision with notice to him and after affording him an opportunity of ``` 12 ``` ## DBP No.94 of 2023 being heard, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, as expeditiously, as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. **Sd/-** **Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd ``` 13 ``` ``` APPENDIX OF DBP 94/2023 ``` DBP No.94 of 2023 ## **`RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.61 DATED 26-06-2023 OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE ``` ``` EXHIBIT R2(B)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM DATED 10-7-2023 ```