KALIYANTHIL BABU v. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD & OTHERS

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24901 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` KALIYANTHIL BABU, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.C.V. KRISHNA PODUVAL, KALIYANTHIL HOUSE, MAHADEVAGRAMAM, PAYYANUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PAYYANUR, PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670307 ``` ``` BY ADVS.S.S.ARAVIND M.V.AMARESAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 K.M. VASUDEVAN THIRUMUMP, S/O. T.E. SREKUMARAN THIRUMUMP, PLAVARA MADAM, PAYYANUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307`** - **`2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, NEELESWARAM P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314`** - **`*3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT FOR DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), PIN - 695001. *CORRECTED (THE DESCRIPTION OF 3RD RESPONDENT IN SUO MOTU IS CORRECTED AS 'REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT' INSTEAD OF 'DEPARTMENT FOR DEVASWOM', AS PER ORDER DATED 02-082023 IN WP(C) 24901/2023`** - **`4 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, MINI BYPASS ROAD, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006`** - **`5 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, MINI BYPASS ROAD,ERANHIPALAM P.O.,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006`** 2 ## W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 ``` R1 BY ADV.SRI.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI T.V ``` ``` R3 BY SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER, R2, R4 & R5 BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, SC, MDB ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who filed M.P.No.1 of 2021 before the 5[th] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, challenging the appointment of the 1[st] respondent herein as an elected member in the Trustee Board of Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple, Payyannur, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 27.06.2023 of the 3[rd] respondent State to the extent it permits the 1[st] respondent to participate in the Trustee Board meeting of Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, as per Ext.P4 Scheme for administration of Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple, the Trustee Board in the said temple shall consists of six Urala Trustees and 15 Trustees from Karala family (Karala Trustees). The petitioner is a Karala Trustee. It is alleged in the writ petition that though as per Ext.P4 Scheme, the Urala Trustees should be from the six specified Manas, the 1[st] respondent, who does not belong to any of the said six Manas, misleading the Board of Trustees, got entry into the Board. 4 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 Based on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, on noticing the aforesaid fact, Ext.P1 report dated 03.02.2021 has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Commissioner before the 5[th] respondent Commissioner. The 5[th] respondent, after hearing all concerned, passed Ext.P2 order 03.04.2022 against the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent challenged the said order before the 3[rd] respondent State. However, while remanding the matter to the 5[th] respondent for fresh consideration, by Ext.P3 order dated 27.06.2023, the 3[rd] respondent State stayed the operation of Ext.P2 order and permitted the 1[st] respondent to attend the Trustee Board meeting of Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple. 3. On 02.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 1[st] respondent, returnable by 04.08.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 2, 4 and 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 3[rd] respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel were directed to get instructions. 4. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 5 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 09.08.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(j) documents, to which the petitioner has filed reply affidavit dated 06.09.2023. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2, 4 and 5 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 3[rd] respondent State. 6. By Ext.P3 order, the 3[rd] respondent set aside Ext.P2 order dated 03.04.2022 of the 5[th] respondent Commissioner in M.P.No.1 of 2021 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the 5[th] respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, while remanding the matter, the 3[rd] respondent State permitted the 1[st] respondent to continue as a member in the Trustee Board of Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple. The direction in Ext.P3 order to that extent is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of M.P.No.1 of 2021, the 1[st] respondent continued as a member of the Board of Trustees. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the 6 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent raised various legal and factual contentions relying on Ext.R1(a) minutes of the meeting of the Thazhakkattu Mana held on 27.12.2014 and other documents placed on record. Since that dispute is now pending consideration before the 5[th] respondent Commissioner, we do not propose to consider the rival contentions raised by the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent in this writ petition. It is for the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent to raise those contentions before the 5[th] respondent Commissioner, at the appropriate stage. 9. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P3 order dated 27.06.2023 of the 3[rd] respondent to the extent it is under challenge in this writ petition. ## 10. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union** **[1971 (1) All. E.R. 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the 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. 11. In **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.** 7 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 **Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court has held that, public orders publicly made, in 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 actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Following the principle laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji’s** **case (supra)** , the Apex Court has reiterated in **Mohinder** ## **Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC** **405]** that, when a statutory functionary makes 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, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 12. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in **Chairman and Managing** ## **Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003)** **4 SCC 364]** held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by 8 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi - judicial performance. 13. The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to 9 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasijudicial authority. 14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the order to be passed by the 5[th] respondent Commissioner in M.P.No.1 of 2021, in terms of the specific direction contained in Ext.P2 order of remand, should be a ‘reasoned order’ after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that if both the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent are co-operating, the 5[th] respondent Commissioner shall take an appropriate decision in M.P.No.1 of 2021, in terms of the direction contained in Ext.P3 order, within a period of three months. 16. In such circumstances, the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P3 order to the extent indicated above fails for the aforesaid reason. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the 5[th] respondent Commissioner to take an appropriate decision in M.P.No.1 of 2021, as directed 10 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 hereinbefore, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It would be open to the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent to submit additional pleadings before the 5[th] respondent, if so advised. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** AV/26/9 11 W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24901/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 03/02/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWAM, NILESWARAM BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MP 1/2021 DATED 03/04/2022 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. G.O(RT.) NO. 2368/2023/RD DATED 27/06/2023 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF SCHEME AS SETTLED BY DISTRICT JUDGE OF NORTH MALABAR IN O.P.NO. 53/1948 DATED 27-07-1950 AND ITS TYPED COPY. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-R-1A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 27.12.2014 OF THE THAZHAKKATTU MANA EXHIBIT-R-1B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER EXHIBIT-R-1C TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST PUBLISHED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATED 18.07.2016 EXHIBIT-R-1D TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.08.2016 PUBLISHED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER EXHIBIT-R-1E TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.05.2021 FILED BY THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT TO PRESIDENT/COMMISSIONER OF MLABAR DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT-R-1F TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI NEWS PAPER DATED 10.05.2011 EXHIBIT-R-1G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.07.2020 ISSUED FROM TAHSILDAR, PAYYANUR ``` 12 ## W.P.(C)No.24901 of 2023 |**`EXHIBIT-R-1H`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THIS`**| |---|---| ||**`RESPONDENT TO THE PAYYANUR POLICE DATED`**| ||**`19.08.2020`**| |**`EXHIBIT-R-1I`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE`**| ||**`PAYYANUR POLICE STATION`**| |**`EXHIBIT-R-1J`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE`**| ||**`TALUK HOSPITAL, PAYYANUR DATED 19.08.2020`**|