High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-03-14Writ petition disposed of; petitioners relegate...

DIPIN K.M. and Others v. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.4502 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
P. G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date: 2022-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The court relegated the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, observing that the legality of Ext.P4 can be challenged before the District Court under Section 89(1) with an appeal to this Court under Section 89(2). The court noted the decision in Radhakrishna Kurup v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2004 (1) KLT 437) that a Section 89(1) petition is not a suit and no notice under Section 124 is required. On merits, the court left the contentions open, having regard to disputed questions of fact, and directed the parties to proceed under the statutory remedy.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; petitioners relegated to statutory remedy under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act; no final decision on merits; contentions kept open.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dipin K.M.
M.A. Sreenivasan
V.A. Sunil Kumar
Ravindran K.R.
MohanAn V.S.
Maghesh P.M.
Sukumaran K.K

Respondents

Cochin Devaswom Board represented by its Secretary
The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board
K.G. Sahadevan
N.A. Velayudhan
P.C. Sudheesh
Panthalur Shiva Bhagavathy Kshethra Bharana Samithy
Sasidhar Raja

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Arun Mathew Vadakkan
• A.P. Vasavan

Counsels for Respondents

• K.S. Sajeev Kumar
• Mohandas K. Chacko
• Smitha E. Mohan
• Ramesh P.N.
• Pareeth K.B.
• K. Habeebulla

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by seven petitioners associated with the Pandallur Shiva Bhagavathy Temple (trustees and an administrative committee) challenging Ext.P4, a 04.02.2022 order of the Cochin Devaswom Board removing the first petitioner from trusteeship and others from temple administration. The petition sought quashing Ext.P4 and restoration of the petitioners’ positions, and directions to allow the first petitioner to continue as trustee and others as Administrative Committee members. During admission, the petition sought to implead the Kshetra Bharana Samithy and its Managing Trustee as respondents, which was allowed by order dated 11.02.2022, making respondents 6 and 7. Arguments touched on the authenticity of Ext.P5 (minutes dated 20.11.2018), alleged forged signatures, and related disputes raised in counter-affidavits. The court noted that Ext.P4’s legality could be challenged before the District Court under sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, with an appeal to this Court under sub-section (2). It cited Radhakrishna Kurup v. Cochin Devaswom Board to the effect that a petition under Section 89(1) is not a suit and notice under Section 124 is not required. On facts, the court relegated the petitioners to the statutory remedy, keeping contentions open, and disposed of the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226, Constitution of IndiaTravancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Section 89(1)Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Section 89(2)Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Section 124Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P4 which removed the trustee and administrative committee is illegal and liable to be quashed; they seek restoration and continuance as trustees and committee members. They rely on statutory remedies under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and challenge the board’s action as beyond or improper exercise of power.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend Ext.P4 is a valid exercise of statutory powers; the petition should be resolved through the statutory remedy under the Act, with disputed factual issues; they note the impleading of the Samithy and its trustee and reference to the enquiry and inventory process and the internal committee functioning.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Radhakrishna Kurup v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others	2004 (1) KLT 437	Positive	Cited as authority to hold that a petition under Section 89(1) is not a suit and that notice under Section 124(1) is not required.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against DIPIN K.M. and Others v. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **W.P.(C) NO.4502 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 DIPIN.K.M AGED 43 YEARS, KUNNTHULLY VEEDU, PANTHALUR P.O, CHOWANNUR (PART), THRISSUR - 680 517.** **2 M.A.SREENIVASAN S/O. APPUKUTTY, MUCHIRUPARAMBIL, PANTHALLUR, CHOWANNUR (PART), THRISSUR - 680 517.** - **3 V.A SUNIL KUMAR** **S/O. AYYAPPAN, VARIYATHPARAMBIL, PANTHALUR P.O, CHOWANNUR (PART0, THRISSUR - 680 517.** **4 RAVINDRAN K.R. S/O. RAMAN, PALLIKRA, PANTHALUR, CHOWANNUR P.O (PART), THRISSUR - 680 517.** - **5 MOHANAN V.S.,** **S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, VALLIKKATTIRI HOUSE, PANTHALUR P.O, CHOWANNUR (PART), THRISSUR - 680 517.** **6 MAGHESH P.M., S/O. MOHANAN, PANTHALUR, CHOWANNUR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503.** **7 SUKUMARAN K.K S/O. KUTTAN, KUNNATHULLI, PANTHALLUR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 685 503.** **BY ADVS. ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN A.P.VASAVAN** 2 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1** **THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 021.** - **2 THE SECRETARY.** **COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 021.** - **3 K.G SAHADEVAN,** - **S/O. GOPALAN, KANDIRITHI HOUSE, PANDALLUR, CHOWANNUR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 517.** - **4 N.A VELAYUDHAN** **S/O. APPU, NELLICKAL HOUSE, PANDALLUR DESOM, CHOWWANUR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 517.** - **5** ## **P.C SUDHEESH** **S/O. CHANDRAN, PALLIKKARA HOUSE, PANDALLUR DESOM, CHOWANNUR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 517.** - **6*** **PANTHALUR SHIVA BHAGAVATHY KSHETRA BHARANA SAMITHY XIII/178 CHOWANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANTHALUR, CHOWANNUR.P.O., THRISSUR-680517, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.** - **7* SASIDHARA RAJA, AGED 83, MANAGING TRUSTREE OF PANTHALUR SHIVA BHAVATHY KSHETRA BHARANA SAMITHY, S/O. CHITRAN NAMBOOTHIRIPADU, ASWATHY, CHRALAYAM PALACE, CHIRALAYAM, KUNNAMKULAM.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680503.** ***ADDL.R6 AND R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.02.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022.** 3 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 **BY ADVS. K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR MOHANDAS K.CHACKO SMITHA.E.MOHAN RAMESH.P.N. PAREETH K B. K.HABEEBULLA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The 1[st] petitioner is the trustee and the 2[nd] petitioner is the President of Pandallur Devaswom. The petitioners 3 to 7 are the members of the Administrative Committee of the Temple. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 04.02.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby the 1[st] petitioner was removed from the trusteeship and other petitioners were removed from the administration of the Temple in question. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to allow the 1[st] petitioner to continue as trustee and allow other petitioners to continue as Administrative Committee members of the Temple. 2. On 10.02.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to file an application to implead the Kshetra Bharana Samithy and also its Managing Trustee, Sri. Sasidhara Raja, as additional respondents in this writ petition. By the order dated 11.02.2022 5 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022, the said Samithy and its Managing Trustee were impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7. 3. On 15.02.2022, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking an order to accept Exts.P6 to P18 as additional documents. On 15.02.2022, the respondents 6 and 7 have filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 21.02.2022, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned counsel for the party respondents. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on Ext.P5 minutes dated 20.11.2018 of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sri Pandallur Shiva Bhagavathy Kshethram. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would point out that the 3[rd] respondent, namely, K.G.Sahadevan, has already filed a complaint before Kunnamkulam Police Station alleging that his signature found in 6 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 Ext.P5 minutes is forged and it appears that a crime has already been registered by the Police. The learned counsel would further point out that in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7 serious disputes have been raised against the claim made by the 1[st] petitioner for approval of his appointment as the Managing Trustee of the Temple in question. 6. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the legality or otherwise of Ext.P4 order dated 04.02.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby the 1[st] petitioner was removed from trusteeship can be agitated before the concerned District Court, invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. An order passed by the District Court can be challenged by the person aggrieved by filing an appeal before this Court, invoking the provisions under subsection (2) of Section 89 of the said Act. Similarly, petitioners 2 to 7, who are removed from the administration of the Temple in question, can challenge their removal by invoking the statutory 7 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 remedy provided under the Act. ## 7. In **Radhakrishna Kurup v. Cochin Devaswom Board** **and others [2004 (1) KLT 437]** a Division Bench of this Court held that since a petition filed before the District Court under subsection (1) of Section 89 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act is not a suit, as provided under Section 124 of the said Act, the petitioner need not give any notice as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Act. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would point out that the Deputy Secretary of the Board has submitted an enquiry report dated 03.12.2021, which is reference No.10 in Ext.P4 order dated 04.02.2022. The learned Standing Counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of that enquiry report, which would show that the Chief Vigilance Officer recorded the statement of the 1[st] petitioner and others in the enquiry conducted on the allegations made against them. 9. In order dated 11.02.2022, we have recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that, in terms of Ext.P4 order dated 8 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 04.02.2022, ten member committee constituted by the Board has already taken charge on 10.02.2022 and the 1[st] petitioner, Managing Trustee, has agreed to submit an inventory of the items before the Board. 10. Considering the above aspect and since a decision on the legality or otherwise of Ext.P4 order requires adjudication of disputed question of facts, we deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy provided under the Act. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, by relegating the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy against Ext.P4 order dated 04.02.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, Judge** dkr 9 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C) No.4502 OF 2022** |**PETITIONER EXHIBITS**|| |---|---| |**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**MINUTES BOOK OF SRI SIVA BHAGAVATHY**| ||**TEMPLE**| |**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE SRI PANDALLUR SIVA**| ||**BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM DATED 05-01-2022 TO**| ||**SECRETARY OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BAORD**| |**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE**| ||**COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 12-10-2021**| ||**NUMBERED AS RT. NO. 8505**| |**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-02-2022**| ||**ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS**| ||**ORDER NO. E-6030/98**| |**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 20-11-**| ||**2018 OF THE SRI PANDALLUR SHIVA**| ||**BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM**| |**Exhibit P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 2.12.1972.**| |**Exhibit P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 24.2.1975.**| |**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 28.1.1976.**| |**Exhibit P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 4.2.1976 WITH TYPED**| ||**COPY.**| |**Exhibit P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 26.11.1981**| |**Exhibit P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 29.7.1985.**| |**Exhibit P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 8.10.1985.**| |**Exhibit P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 15.2.1986.**| |**Exhibit P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**TITLE DEED DATED 20.06.1986.**| 10 W.P.(C)No.4502 of 2022 **Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 25.11.1987. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 6.6.1990. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 16.3.2002. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 19.10.1971. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLANDALLUR SIVA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE DATED 20.11.2018. Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANDALLUR SIVA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE DATED NIL. Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 20.02.2022 TAKEN FROM TEMPLE.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P6(A) TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.1942/2021 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION.** **Exhibit P6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY SRI.SAHADEVAN PANDALUR AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **Exhibit P6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO HON'BLE DEVASWOM BOARD MINISTER ON 23.09.2021. Exhibit P6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.6030/98 DATED 4.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **Exhibit P6(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.2.2022 ISSUED B6Y THE 6TH RESPONDENT TRUST TO THE PRESIDENT OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.**