J.R. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Others

1 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.24564 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` J.R. RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. N. JANARDHANAN NAIR, SMRAA- 23, SWAMIYAR MADOM, THUNDATHIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695581 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 *STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 *[THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS 'REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT' INSTEAD OF 'DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT' AS PER ORDER DATED 08/08/2023 IN WP(C) 24564/2023], PIN - 695001`** - **`2 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.`** - **`3 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN – 680021`** - **`4 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE,`** 2 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 ``` REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PIN – 673006 ``` - **`5 THEKKE SANKARA MADHOM, THEKKE MADHOM ROAD, PAZHAYA NADAKKAVU, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 680001`** - **`6 NADUVIL SANKARA MADHOM, THEKKE MADHOM ROAD, PAZHAYA NADAKKAVU, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 680001`** ``` 7 THRUKKAIKKATTU SANKARA MADHOM, PARIYAPURAM, THANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 676302 ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.DEEPAK K.MOHANAKANNAN D.S.THUSHARA(K/76/2010) KARTHIK BHAVADASAN(K/187/2011) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.S. RAJMOHAN – SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` SRI G. BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` SRI K.P. SUDHEER -STANDING COUNSEL- COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` SRI R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN- STANDING COUNSEL -MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ## **`SRI K. MOHANAKANNAN- RESPONDENT`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is stated to be a disciple of Sree Sankaracharya Swamikal and one among the trustees of Sree Sankara Dharma Paripalana Yogam having registration No.283/IV/2019, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and the 4[th] respondent Malabar Devaswom Board and also the 1[st] respondent State to conduct an enquiry regarding the functioning of the 5[th] respondent Thekke Sankara Madhom, the 6[th] respondent Naduvil Sankara Madhom and the 7[th] respondent Thrukkaikkattu Sankara Madhom and also a detailed auditing of the accounts including the properties, idols, utensils, furniture and archaeologically important documents, in a time bound manner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to inspect and audit the accounts of respondents 5 to 7 and the mutts and institutions under the said respondents, for the last 15 years; and to direct respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate steps 4 ## W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 to repossess the alienated properties and valuables belonging to religious endowments and institutions under Sree Sankara Mutts in Kerala. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1[st] respondent State and respondents 2 to 4 Devaswom Boards in protecting the properties of Sree Sankara Mutts situated in different parts of Kerala. In the writ petition, it is alleged that there is mismanagement of the properties of the Sree Sankara Mutts, temples, valuable furniture, utensils and even idols belonging to the Mutts due to the callous negligence by the Managers of the Mutts. Though the property of the Mutts are religious endowments, no proper auditing is being conducted. Now, most of the valuable properties of the Mutts are in the possession of third parties, with the connivance of the Managers of the Mutts. 3. The petitioner along with another had submitted Complaint No.97 of 2022 before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board, for auditing the income and expenditure of Sankara Dharma Paripalana Yogam. In that DBP, the learned Ombudsman has 5 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 submitted a report dated 01.08.2023, pointing out the pendency of this writ petition. That report was numbered as DBP No.85 of 2023, which was closed by the order dated 07.11.2023, in view of the pendency of this writ petition. 4. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 16.11.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The 6[th] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 31.10.2023. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent State, the respective Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, Cochin Devaswom Board and Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent and also the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 7[th] respondent. 6. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. [see: **Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others** - **2018 (1) KHC 536]** 7. In **M.V.Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 6 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 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, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the 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 7 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 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 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 8 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 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) 8. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom** **Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 9. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan** , on the facts of the case 9 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ 10 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any 11 ## W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 10. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parents patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 11. In **Mohanan Nair** the Division Bench relied on the 12 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 decision in **Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838]** , wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e., Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud 13 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated **Rameswar Pagoda case [(1874) 1 Ind App 209]** it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contention of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non- 14 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 feasance of a trustee. ## 12. In **Nandakumar v. District Collector and others** **[2018 (2) KHC 58]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction in **Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** . The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** . In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without involvement of the Devaswom, securing ‘pattayam’ or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 13. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549]** a Division Bench of this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant 15 ## W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court [A.A. Gopalakrishnan - (2007) 7 SCC 482]. Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard and there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected. 14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main grievance of the petitioner is regarding the audit of accounts of the 5[th] respondent Thekke Sankara Madhom, the 6[th] respondent Naduvil Sankara Madhom and 7[th] respondent Thrukkaikkattu Sankara Madhom. 15. Though various contentions have been raised in the writ petition and also in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6, we do not propose to deal with those 16 ## W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 contentions in this proceedings, since it is an admitted fact that the audited accounts of the 5[th] respondent Thekke Sankara Madhom for the period from 2015-16 to 2022-23 have already been submitted before the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board for audit. However, the audited accounts of the 5[th] respondent for the period from 2002-03 to 2014-15 are yet to be submitted. The submission made by the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent is that the said respondent is cooperating with the audit conducted by the audit wing of the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. The learned counsel would submit that, if not already submitted, the audited accounts of the 5[th] respondent for the period from 2002-03 to 2014-15 shall be submitted before the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, without any further delay. The submission made by the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent Naduvil Sankara Madhom is that, as stated in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit dated 31.10.2023, the audited accounts of the said respondent for the year 2003-04 to 2021-22 has already been submitted before the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board on 06.03.2022. 16. The 5[th] respondent Thekke Sankara Madhom and the - 6[th] respondent Naduvil Sankara Madhom are controlled 17 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 institutions under the Cochin Devaswom Board. Sub-section (6) of section 61 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, define the term ‘institution’, which reads thus; “(6) ‘institution’ shall mean a Hindu Religious Institution other than an incorporated or unincorporated Devaswom by whatever designation known, dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof and shall include – (a) Every Hindu temple or shrine so dedicated or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of religious worship and all property belonging to or given or endowed for the benefit or support of such temple or shrine or for the purpose of any service or charity; and (b) Samooham or samooha madhom (of the Paradesa Brahmins) or sabha madhom, sanyasi madhom, yogam or brahmaswom madhom (of the Nambudiri Brahmins) or any other endowment or foundation of a Hindu religious nature or both combined, by whatever designation known and all property belonging thereto whether applied wholly to religious purposes or partly to religious and partly to charitable or other purposes and any express or constructive trust of a Hindu religious nature by which property is vested 18 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 in the hands of any person.” 17. Chapter XII of the Act deals with audit and budget. Section 103 of the Act deals with the submission of audit report. Section 106 of the Act deals with audit of all institutions to be as specified in this part. Section 106 reads thus; “106. Audit of all institutions to be as specified in this part: Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in any scheme settled or deemed to be a scheme settled under Part II of this Act the audit of the accounts of every institution shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Part II of this Act.” 18. Insofar as the audit of accounts of the 7[th] respondent Thrukkaikkattu Sankara Madhom is concerned, it is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Chapter VII of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, deals with budgets, accounts and audit. Section 71 of the Act deals with accounts and audit. Section 72 deals with authority to whom the audit report is to be submitted, Section 73 deals with contents of audit report and Section 74 deals with rectification of defects disclosed in audit and order of surcharge against the trustee, etc. 19. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would point out that the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 19 ## W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 1994 came into force with effect from 11.05.1994. The temples under the management of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department (Presently the Malabar Devaswom Board) is included in the schedule to the said Act. In view of the provisions under the Act of 1994, the accounts of the temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board are subjected to audit by the State Audit Department. 20. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the State Audit Department is having offices at Kozhikode, Kannur and Palakkad, which are headed by a Joint Director, for conducting statutory audit of the accounts of the controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. 21. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, with the following directions; (1) The 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board is directed to complete the audit of accounts of the 5[th] respondent Thekke Sankara Madhom and the 6[th] respondent Naduvil Sankara Madhom, strictly in accordance with the statutory requirements, as 20 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the audited accounts of the 5[th] respondent Thekke Sankara Madhom and the 6[th] respondent Naduvil Sankara Madhom for any period is yet to be submitted by the said respondents, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board shall issue a notice to the said respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, requiring them to submit the audited accounts for that period, within a time limit to be specified in that notice. After receipt of the audited accounts, the audit wing of the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board shall complete the audit of accounts of respondents 5 and 6, without further delay, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (2) Regarding the audit of accounts of the 7[th] respondent Thrukkaikkattu Sankara Madhom, it is for the petitioner to approach the concerned Deputy Director of the State Audit Department, who is in charge of the audit of that Madhom, which is a controlled institutions under the 4[th] respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, by submitting a proper representation, with copy to the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. In case the accounts of the 7[th] respondent Thrukkaikkattu Sankara Madhom is not subjected to audit by the State Audit Department, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board shall take necessary steps through the concerned Assistant Commissioner, to see that the accounts of that Madhom 21 ## W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 are submitted for audit by the State Audit Department, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Further reliefs sought for in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again, subject to the outcome of the statutory audit of the accounts of respondents 5 to 7. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN 22 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24564/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - **`EXHIBIT P1`** ``` THE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.39/96 OF MUNCHIRA SRO PERTAINING TO MOLIYOOR TEMPLE, KATTAKKADA BELONGS TO THE MUNCHIRA MATAM DATED 21.5.1996 ``` - **`EXHIBIT P2`** - **`THE OFFICE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.8.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KATTAKKADA`** - **`EXHIBIT P3`** - **`THE COPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE SWAMIYAR OF THEKKE MATAM AS DOCUMENT NO.58/2010 DATED 28.1.2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`EXHIBIT P4`** - **`THE COPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY VIDE NO.300/2010 DATED 29.7.2010 OF SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF PETITION DATED 26.8.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND ITS RECEIPT`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF ORDER NO. 064/2018 DATED 20.3.2018 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION`** - **`EXHIBIT P7`** ``` THE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 7.2.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE MANAGER, VADAKKESANKARA MATAM FOR CONSTRUCTING A SHOPPING COMPLEX ``` - **`EXHIBIT P8 THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2013`** - **`EXHIBIT P9`** - **`A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13.8.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT`** 23 W.P.(C)No.24564 of 2023 ``` EXHIBIT P10 ``` ``` THE COPY OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED DATED 13.5.2022 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING SUPERVISION AND AUDIT OF THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11 ``` ``` THE COPY OF PETITION DATED 20.8.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12 ``` ``` THE COPY OF PETITION DATED 18.7.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P13 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 10.10.2022 ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT P14 ``` ``` THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND OTHER OFFICIALS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P15 ``` ``` THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21.6.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```