IN THE MATTER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD – ALLEGATION OF STEALING OF MONEY FROM 'BHANDARAM' OF ALATHIYOOR PERUMTHRIKKOVIL DEVASWOM (HANUMAN KAVU) UNDER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DURING COUNTING BY DEVASWOM INSPECTOR

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944 DBP NO. 111 OF 2018 ``` ``` IN THE MATTER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD – ALLEGATION OF STEALING OF MONEY FROM 'BHANDARAM' OF ALATHIYOOR PERUMTHRIKKOVIL DEVASWOM (HANUMAN KAVU) UNDER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DURING COUNTING BY DEVASWOM INSPECTOR ``` ``` SRI.SANKARA VARMA – SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG. ``` ## **`------------`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SUO MOTU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE673 006`** - **`2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.`** - **`3 P.K. SANKARA VARMA INSPECTOR, ZAMORIN CENTRAL DEVASWOM, KOMMERY P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 007`** ``` *ADDL.R4 ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT THE HERIDITERY TRUSTEE OF ALATHIYOOR, PERUMTHRIKKOVIL DEVASWOM, ALATHIYOOR TIRUR, MALAPPURAM ``` -2- DBP No.111 of 2018 ``` IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 09/10/2019 IN IA NO.1/2019 IN DBP 111/2018 ``` ``` *ADDL.R5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ``` ``` 23RQ+R36, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM – 676505 ``` ``` IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R5 VIDE ORDER DATED 22/11/2021 IN DBP 111/2018 ``` ``` R1 BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` R2 & R5 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV.SRI.P.JERIL BABU R4 BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA ``` ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- DBP No.111 of 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This DBP is registered _suo motu_ based on the proceedings of the then Devaswom Bench of this Court pertaining to the allegation of stealing of money from ‘Bhandaram' of Sree Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom (Hanuman Kavu), which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board. In the complaint, which forms part of the proceedings, the employees of Alathiyoor Hanuman Kavu allege that Sri.Sankara Varma, who is the Zamorins Central Devaswom Inspector, who is in charge of counting of ‘Bhandaram’ of the said temple, has stolen high denomination currency notes of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- during the process of counting. The petitioners further alleged that when they complained about the said fact to the Devaswom Executive Officer Sri.Manoj Kumar, they were threatened and demoralised by him. The _modus operandi_ of the alleged stealing narrated in the aforesaid proceedings by the then Devaswom Bench reads thus; “Sri.Shankara Varma comes for supervision of counting -4- DBP No.111 of 2018 of 'Bhandaram' wearing pants. The sacks taken out from 'Bhandaram' would contain a mix of currency notes and coins. These sacks are first emptied into a table and then the sacks are refilled only with the currency notes. Petitioners allege that during this time Sri.Shankara Varma steals the high denomination currency notes by folding them inside the palm and not putting them back to the sacks. When the sacks containing only the currency notes are taken to another table where they are sorted using the Note Sorting Machines (NSM), Sri.Shankara Varma stealthily transfers the high denomination notes in his hand to his pant's pockets. 2. Petitioners further allege that some acts of central Devaswom Inspector Sri.Shankara Varma such as carrying of sacks instead of supervising the process, point towards his intention of stealing. Petitioners then allege that services of Sri.Shankara Varma was terminated by his former employer State Bank of India for financial misconduct and that there are rumours that he had undergone jail term in gulf countries for alleged financial misappropriation while working in financial institutions there. Petitioners state that a person like Sri.Shankara Varma with such criminal antecedents was appointed to this post only because of his brother Sri. Krishnanunni, who is the personal secretary to Zamorin Raja. 3. Petitioners submit that they have copied the CCTV video recordings of the counting of 'Bhandaram' and the -5- DBP No.111 of 2018 alleged stealing of money with the help of a CCTV technician, who happens to be their friend. Petitioners have enclosed two DVDs each along with the petitions placed at pages 7 c.f and 15 c.f containing the CCTV recordings for perusal. Petitioners allege that Sri.Shankara Varma is also involved in such stealing activities from nearby Devaswoms too. Petitioners request this Court to conduct an enquiry in the matter to restore the faith of the devotees and to take necessary steps to remove such an official with criminal antecedents from Devaswom service.” 2. On 07.01.2019, when this DBP came up for consideration, the Registry was directed to serve a copy of this proceedings to the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board. The learned Standing Counsel and also the learned Government Pleader were directed to get instructions. On 21.01.2019, this Court issued urgent notice to the 3[rd] respondent by speed post. The 1[st] respondent was directed to file an affidavit as to the sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures including the position as on date. On 09.10.2019, this Court allowed I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed by Zamorin Raja of Calicut seeking an order to implead himself as the additional 4[th] respondent in this DBP. On 22.11.2021, when -6- DBP No.111 of 2018 this matter came up for consideration, the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram was _suo motu_ impleaded as the additional 5[th] respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for the additional 5[th] respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the additional 5[th] respondent as to the present status of the complaints made by the Hereditary Trustee of Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom dated 12.11.2018 and 30.01.2019, referred to in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2019. 3. On 22.02.2019, a statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, producing therewith Annexures R1(1) to R1(4) documents, wherein it is stated that, Sree Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom is a public religious institution coming under the supervisory control of Malabar Devaswom Board. It is under the Trusteeship of the Zamorin Raja of Calicut. There are around 40 temples under the trusteeship of Zamorin Raja and each temple has its own office, Manager/Executive Officer and other employees. The Zamorin Raja, as the hereditary trustee -7- DBP No.111 of 2018 manager of all temples, through a Central Office at Valayanadu Komeri, Calicut, coordinates the administration of temples under the Devaswom. In the complaint, the main allegation is against Sri.Sankara Varma, the Devaswom Inspector. He is the temple employee appointed by hereditary trustee, under Section 48 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1951 and not an employee under the Malabar Devaswom Board. A petition was received by the office of the Commissioner in this regard, wherein it is alleged that the said Sankara Varma, who is in charge of counting of ‘Bandarams’ of Sree Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom, has stolen high denomination currency, during the process of counting. When they complained about this to Devaswom Executive Officer, they were threatened and demoralised by him. The complaint was enquired through a Special Team constituted for this purpose and the team, after conducting a detailed enquiry by issuing notice to all parties concerned, submitted a comprehensive report with the recommendation to conduct an enquiry on CCTV visuals through C-DAC and that to shift the place of counting of ‘Bandarams’ to an open hall, well equipped -8- DBP No.111 of 2018 - with CCTV cameras and to appoint non hereditary trustees for ensuring public participation in the temple administration. For the last so many years counting of ‘Bandarams’ was being conducted in ‘Nadupura’. The Devaswom Manager, temple employee, representative of trustee, staff of Malabar Devaswom Board, a devotee and Bank employees are being engaged. However, in Annexure R1(1) report dated 25.04.2018 the Special Team has made adverse remarks over the permanent presence of same devotee in all occasions. The said report was considered by the Malabar Devaswom Board, which met on 27.07.2018, and as per Resolution No.43, decided to direct the trustee of the Devaswom to report the matter to Cyber Cell. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the trustee to take legal action, vide Annexure R1(2) and R1(3) letters dated 28.09.2018 and 17.01.2019. But no steps are taken by the trustee as per the directions contained in Annexures R1(2) and R1(3). The appointment and conditions of service of the employees of all the temple employees are governed by Sections 48 and 49 of the HR&CE Act and Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the said Act. -9- ## DBP No.111 of 2018 Since Sri.Sankara Varma is a temple employee appointed by the trustee under Section 48 of the Act, it is for the employer to take disciplinary action against him or any other temple employees, if any irregularities or malpractices found against them. In the statement it is pointed out that, grave discrepancies have been pointed out by the Senior Superintendent for verification of Jewels and valuables of Malabar Devaswom Board, in Annexure R1(4) report No.L.Dis.1/18 dated 31.03.2018, with respect to the ornaments and valuables of Sree Thirunavaya Mukunda Kshetram and the matter is under the consideration of the Malabar Devaswom Board. 4. On 26.02.2019, the 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, regarding the incident referred to in the complaint, which is the subject matter of this DBP, the hereditary trustee appointed a committee to enquire into the matter. The Malabar Devaswom Board has also conducted an enquiry against him on the very same issue. Report was obtained from an expert in Information Technology on CCTV footage. The committee filed -10- DBP No.111 of 2018 two reports dated 27.04.2018 and 31.08.2018. The conclusions in those reports are in his favour. In the course of investigation, the Committee recorded statements of almost all the Executive Officers under the concerned Devaswom and also four employees of Alathiyur Perumthrikkovil. As per the report, the Executive Officers have stated in categorical terms before the Committee that he has not committed any theft or malpractice. The Committee also viewed CCTV footage which forms part of the complaint and found that there is nothing incriminating the 3[rd] respondent. Sri.Karunakaran, the Central Devaswom Officer, stated before the Committee that there is nothing in CCTV footage to show that the 3[rd] respondent has committed theft. In paragraphs 6 to 8 of the counter affidavit, the 3[rd] respondent alleged that the complaint made against him is on account of conspiracy between certain employees in the Devaswom. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the compact disc contains CCTV footage taken from Alathiyur Perumthrikkovil. Only a person, who is having access to the server, can copy such files. The company which installed CCTV cameras has filed a statement to the effect that only -11- DBP No.111 of 2018 Sri.Karunakaran, the Executive Officer, Alathiyur Perumthrikkovil, Sri.Manoj and Sri.Mahesh are in possession of the password. 5. On 15.03.2019, Sri.K.C.Unnianujan Raja, the Zamorin Raja of Calicut, filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking an order to get himself impleaded as the additional 4[th] respondent. In the affidavit dated 13.03.2019 filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2019 it is stated that, though Annexure R1(1) report is dated 25.04.2018, the same has not been furnished to the hereditary trustee till date and the same was produced along with the statement filed by the Standing Counsel for the first time, in a proceedings in which the trustee is not a party. The statement proceeds to state that the report aforesaid was considered by the Malabar Devaswom Board which met on 27.07.2018 and directed the trustee to take legal action in the matter and report the incident before the Cyber Cell. It is further alleged in the report that no steps have been taken by the trustee pursuant to the Annexures R1(2) and R1(3). A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the hereditary trustee in W.P.(C)No.2686 of 2019 would show that pursuant to -12- DBP No.111 of 2018 Annexures R1(2) and R1(3) the trustee has filed complaints dated 12.11.2018 and 30.01.2019 before the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, and requested to forward the same to the Cyber Cell for conducting an enquiry. Along with the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel another report dated 31.03.2018 pertaining to Sree Navamukunda Temple, Thirunavaya, is produced. The copy of the said report has also not communicated to the hereditary trustee. The said report has nothing to do with the subject matter involved in the present DBP. In the statement wild allegations have been made with regard to maintenance of the ornaments and valuables of Sree Thirunavaya Navamukunda Temple behind the back of the hereditary trustee, without putting the same to the hereditary trustee to offer his explanation. Now the report has been produced after a period of 1 year, before this Court, as if the contents thereof are true. The attempt appears to be malign the hereitary trustee and to cast a stigma on the administration of the temple under the hereditary trusteeship of Zamorin Raja, at the instance of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, who is bent upon to see that temples under -13- DBP No.111 of 2018 the hereditary trusteeship of Zamorin Raja are taken over by the Board all along. The contents of Annexure R1(4) report dated 31.03.2018 is absolutely incorrect and the entire articles and ornaments said to be missing are maintained appropriately. For the last 19 years, no verification of gold and silver ornaments of Thirunavaya Devaswom has been carried out by the Board. The statement aforesaid is filed at the instance of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, who is maintaining animosity against the hereditary trustee. 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 2[nd] respondent and also additional 5[th] respondent, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and also the learned counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent. 7. From the affidavit filed by the additional 5[th] respondent Superintendent of Police it is seen that, on the complaint made by the Executive Officer, Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom, the Station House Officer, Tirur Police Station, conducted an enquiry and reported that, though the alleged incident occurred on 26.12.2017, the petition was -14- DBP No.111 of 2018 lodged only on 30.01.2019. Hence, CCTV visuals mentioned in the petition could not be recovered as CCTV backup was only for one month. As part of enquiry, statements of Devaswom employees and devotees, who were present at the time of the alleged incident were recorded, which revealed that about 30 persons were present at the time of counting the amount on 26.12.2017 and none of them had any complaint regarding the same. It was also stated that the counting procedure of ‘Bhandaram’ was transparent and there was no room for such allegation, as raised by the Executive Officer in the petition. In the counter affidavit it is stated that, since the complaint made by the Executive Officer could not be proved, no legal action was initiated on the said complaint. 8. Based on a complaint dated 15.01.1990 received from one Prabhakaran alleging serious irregularities and illegalities in the opening of hundials, counting and accounting of collections, a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 19.01.1990 registered a public interest litigation as O.P.No.631 of 1990. In that writ petition, notice was issued to the Secretary of Travancore Devaswom Board, the Secretary of -15- DBP No.111 of 2018 Cochin Devaswom Board, the Administrator of Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur and also the Administrator of Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakkuda. Apart from above, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Kozhikode, was also made a party to that original petition. By the order dated 19.01.1990, the Division Bench, considering the larger public interest, laid down the procedures and directions in the matter of opening and counting of hundial collections and accounting. The directions contained in that order were directed to be implemented with effect from 20.01.1990. The said procedures and directions are as follows; “(i) In every one of the temples under the control of the above authorities, prior notice of the date of opening and counting of Hundi collections shall be exhibited in the respective temples at least three days in advance, so as to give wide publicity. (ii) Individual notices shall be sent, about the counting of Hundi collections, at least three days in advance, to the Melsanthi of the temple and to the President of the Temple Committee, if there is one. (iii) Hundi collections shall be opened and counted and accounting made only in the presence of the Melsanthi or -16- DBP No.111 of 2018 his authorised representative, the President of the Temple Committee or his authorised representative and at least two independent worshippers of the temples, who are present at the relevant time. They should be present from the time of opening of Hundis and witness the entire work till Hundis are resealed. (iv) The opening, counting and accounting of the Hundis collections shall be recorded in detail in a mahazar, in triplicate, and attested by the above persons, who are witnesses to the same, apart from the Devaswom officials who are present. The full name and detailed address of the above persons shall be specified in the mahazar. (v) One copy of the said mahazar shall be sent to the Registrar of this Court, by the concerned Devaswom Executive Officer of the concerned temple, within two days of counting of Hundi collections. (vi) All the Hundis shall be properly sealed and locked and this shall be ensured by the concerned temple officials.” 9. Later, by the judgment dated 26.03.2004, O.P.No.631 of 1990 was disposed of by modifying paragraph (v) of the aforesaid directions by making it clear that it is not necessary to send a copy of the mahazar to the Registrar of this Court by the concerned Devaswom Executive Officer within two days of counting of hundial collections, as mentioned in paragraph (v) of the order dated 19.01.1990. In -17- DBP No.111 of 2018 the said judgment, it was made clear that, as and when this Court finds it necessary to call for the mahazar, the Devaswom Board should be prepared to submit the same to this Court. 10. Regarding opening of Bhandaram in temples the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions (Administration) Department, Kozhikode, has issued a circular dated 30.01.1990, which is one issued pursuant to the order of this Court 19.01.1990 in O.P.No.631 of 1990. The circular dated 30.01.1990 reads thus; "നം. ബി1 440/90. ഹിᩎ᪎മതധർ്ᩜ്ᩝാപന (ഭരണ) വകു്പ് ഡെപൂ്ᨾി ക്ᩜീഷണറുഡെ ഓഫീസ്, കകാഴികകാെ് - 20. തീയതി: 30/01/1990 വിഷയം : കേ്ᩔ ഭ്ᩄാര്ങൾ തുറക തും എണ തിനുമു്ᩦ അപാകതകൾ ഹഹകകാെതി ഉ്ᩈരവ് നെ്പാക തു സംബ്ᩏി്ᨴ്. സൂചന ; 1. ഹഹകകാെതി രജി᪚➇ാറുഡെ സി.ഒ.ബി./90 തീയതി "നം. ബി1 440/90. 19/01/1990-ഡെ ഉ്ᩈരവ് 2. അസി᪚➚്ᩙ് രജി᪚➇ാർ, എറണാകുളം ഒ. പി. 631/90 തീയതി 20/01/1990-ഡെ ക്ᩈ്. കേ്ᩔഭ്ᩄാര്ങൾ തുറഡ്നണ തു സംബ്ᩏി്ᨴ് ഹഹകകാെതി കമൽ ഉ്ᩈരവു്ᩚകാരം ഏതാനും നിർകേശ്ങൾ നൽകിയിരിക്ന്. നിെവിലു്ᩦ നെപെി ്ᩚകാരം വകു്പിഡ്ᩙ അനുവാദം വാങ കതാഡൊ്പം താഡഴ്പറയു്ന നിർകേശ്ങൾ കൂെി 20/01/1990 മുതൽ പാെികക്ിതാണ്. 1. കേ്ᩔ ഭ്ᩄാര്ങൾ തുറക തിനും എണ തിനും മൂന് ദിവസ്ങൾക് മു്ᩘ് കേ്ᩔകനാ്ᨾീസ് കബാർെിൽ ്ᩚᩜ᪎ത വിവരം അറിയി്പായി ്ᩚസി്ᩍീകരികക്ിതാണ്. 2. കേ്ᩔ്ᩈിഡെ കമൽശാ്ᩌിക്ം കേ്ᩔ ഭരണസമിതി ഡചയർമാനും 3 ദിവസം മു്ᩘ് ഈ വിവരം ്ᩚകതേകമായി അറിയികക്ിതാണ്. 3. ഭ്ᩄാരം തുറ്ന് എണ ത് കമൽശാ്ᩌി/അവർ അധികാരഡ്പടു്ᩈിയ ്ᩚതിനിധി/ രി് സവത᪚❼ഭ്ᨹൻമാർ, ്ᩏ᪚➚ീ കബാർെ് ഡചയർമാൻ എ്നിവരുഡെ സാ്നി്ᩍേ ്ᩈിൽ കവണം ഡചയ്വാൻ. തുറഡ്ന്ണി്ᩈീരു്നതുവഡര അവർ ഉ്ിായിരികണം. 4. ഭ്ᩄാരം രജി᪚➚റിഡ്ᩙ ശരിപകർ്പ് ഹാജരായവരുഡെ ഒപ്സഹിതം രി്കകാ്പി ത്യാറാകി അതിഡൊന് ഹഹകകാെതി രജി᪚➇ാർക് ഭ്ᩄാരം എ്ണികഴിᨼ᪎ രി്ദിവസ്ᩈിനു്ᩦിൽ അയകണം. -18- DBP No.111 of 2018 5. ഭ്ᩄാര്ങൾഡകല്ാം വകു്പിഡ്ᩙ സീൽ പതികണം. ഒ്പ് എസ്.പി . ജയച᪚❾ൻ നായർ ഡെപൂ്ᨾി ക്ᩜിഷണർ” 11. The circular dated 30.01.1990 was followed by a circular dated 17.06.1997 issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions (Administration) Department, Kozhikode, which is one issued taking note of circular dated 26.02.1997. The circular dated 17.06.1997 reads thus; “നം. എ്ᨴ്. ആർ. 3/2899/97. ഹിᩎ᪎മതധർ്ᩜ്ᩝാപന (ഭരണ) വകു്പ് ക്ᩜീഷണറുഡെ ഓഫീസ്, കകാഴികകാെ് - 20. തീയതി: 17/06/1997 സർകെർ വിഷയം : ഹിᩎ᪎മതധർ്ᩜ്ᩝാപന (ഭരണ) വകു്പ് പരിധിയിലു്ᩦ കേ്ᩔ്ങളിഡെ ഭ്ᩄാര്ങൾ എണ്തിനു്ᩦ നിർകേശ്ങൾ പാെിക തു സംബ്ᩏി്ᨴ്. സൂചന : ഈ ഓഫീസിഡെ സർക്െർ നം. എ്ᨴ്. ആർ. 5/399/97. തീയതി 26/02/1997 ണ വകു്പിഡ്ᩙ അധികാരപരിധിയിൽ ഡപടു്ന കേ്ᩔ്ങളിഡെ ഭ്ᩄാര്ങൾ എ കാരേ്ᩈിൽ ബഹു. ഹഹകകാെതിയുഡെ ഉ്ᩈരവുകൾ ്ᩚകാരം സൂചനയിഡെ സർക്െർ മുകേന നിർകേശ്ങൾ പുറഡ്പടുവി്ᨴിരിക്ന്. എ്നാൽ ഹഹകകാെതി ഉ്ᩈരവു്ᩚകാരമു്ᩦ നിർകേശ്ങൾ പാെി്ᨴതുസംബ്ᩏി്ᨴ് കേ്ᩔ്ങളിൽ നിന റിക്പാർ്ᨾിൽ പറᨼ᪎ കാണു്നില്. ആയതിനാൽ കമെിൽ ഭ്ᩄാരം തുറഡ്ന്ണിയതു സംബ്ᩏി്ᨴ് റിക്പാർ്ᨾിൽ ഹഹകകാെതി ഉ്ᩈരവിഡ്ᩙ അെി്ᩝാന്ᩈിൽ സൂചന്ᩚകാരമു്ᩦ സർക്െറിഡെ നിർകേശ്ങൾ കർശനമായി പാെിക്കയും അ്ങഡന ഡച്ᩓി്ᨾിഡ്ിന്ം സാേേഡ്പടു്ᩈിയിരികക്ിതാണ്. **==> picture [321 x 37] intentionally omitted <==** 12. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka** **Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of -19- DBP No.111 of 2018 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 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 occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned counsel for the additional 4[th] respondent, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this DBP by directing the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to take necessary steps to ensure that the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 19.01.1990 in O.P.No.631 of 1990, as modified by the judgment dated 26.03.2004, and the consequential directions contained in circular dated -20- ## DBP No.111 of 2018 30.01.1990 of the Deputy Commissioner and circulars dated 26.02.1997 and 17.06.1997 of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions (Administration) Department, Kozhikode, regarding opening of hundials are scrupulously followed in the temples under the trusteeship of Zamorin Raja of Calicut, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Any violation of the directions contained therein by the officers of the Board, who are in the supervisory cadre, or by the staff deputed for supervising the opening of hundi, or by the staff or employees appointed by the hereditary trustee under Section 48 of the Act shall be dealt with appropriately by taking stringent action. In all such temples, the opening of hundials and the activities connected therewith shall be done under the surveillance of CCTV cameras. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** AV/7/7