Karrikode Bhagavathy Temple Advisory Committee v. Travancore Devaswom Board and The Chief Engineer (General), Travancore Devaswom Board

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, ``` ``` 1944 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.30355 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` KARRIKODE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.R.RAJEEV, S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, KARIKKODE BHAGAWATHY TE,MPLE, THODUPUZHA EAST, THODUPUZHA.P.O, PIN-685585, RESIDING AT KUREEKATTU HOUSE, EDAVETTY.P.O, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685588. ``` ``` BY ADVS. T.V.GEORGE LINDA GEORGE ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM BOARD HEADQUARTERS, KAWDIAR.P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.`** - **`2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM BOARD, HEADQUARTERS, KAWDIAR.P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695003.`** ``` BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, namely, which the Temple Advisory Committee of Karikkode Bhagavathy Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to prepare a revised estimate for the construction of Prasada Oottupura-cum-Tantrimadom of that temple, as referred to in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 12.04.2013 in W.P.(C)No.54 of 2013, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to entrust the proposed construction work on the revised estimate rate, without any deductions, with the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee, in the absence of any contractors to take up work on the revised estimate rate. The further reliefs sought are a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to complete the construction work of Prasada Oottupura-cum-Tantrimadom within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the term of W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 3 the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year. 2. On 23.09.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for the respondents, who was directed to place on record the counter affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent within four weeks. 3. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the counter affidavit by the respondents is placed on record. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus; ''5. It is submitted that the revised administrative sanction for the above work was accorded by the Board for Rs.52,27,000/- based on DSR 2012, vide order, ROC No.9755/03/M dated 30.10.2013. The work was awarded to the Temple Advisory Committee at the sanctioned estimate rate vide ROC No.9588/03/M dated 30.01.2014 with the condition that the Temple Advisory Committee should remit balance contribution amount of Rs.7,66,000/-. But the Committee was not willing to execute the work with any further contribution. 6. It is submitted that due to the above adamant stand of the Committee, the Board ordered to tender the above work as per ROC No.9588/03/M dated 22.01.2016. The work was tendered by fixing the last date as 03.06.2016 and two bids were received. The W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 4 lowest bidder was one Sri.M.C.Eldo. As per ROC No.9588/03/M dated 21.10.2016, the contract was awarded to Sri M.C. Eldo at 45% above the sanctioned estimate rate, subject to the approval of this Hon'ble Court. This Hon’ble Court granted sanction to award the work to the Contractor, Sri.M.C. Eldo as above. 7. It is submitted that the selected contractor did not execute the agreement, stating that the work was awarded to him after the expiry of 6 months from the date of tender. Thereafter, due to the flood in 2018 and 2019 followed by the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resultant poor financial position did not permit the Board to take further steps to proceed with the work. 8. It respectfully submitted that now the estimate is being revised based on the current schedule of rates, i.e, DSR 2018, and will be put to tender after obtaining revised estimate sanction administrative sanction and permission from this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner is utilising this as a tool to extend the term of the Committee, on extraneous considerations.'' 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, for the respondents. 5. Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub- section (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 5 temple in the name ‘Temple Advisory Committee’ (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board. 6. As per Clause (11) of the Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the Committee by the Department. The Devaswom Commissioner is empowered to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year on the ground of any development works or unavoidable rituals. On the aforesaid grounds the 1[st] respondent Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 6 be extended beyond two years. ## 7. In **Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board** **[2021 (3) KHC 379]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, with the insertion of Section 31A to the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples has become statutory. In the said decision, the Division Bench noticed that, the Travancore Devaswom Board, in exercise of the rule making power under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, has framed rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board and this Court has approved the draft bye-laws by the order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No. 153 of 2009. Clause (11) of the Rules deals with the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee. As per Clause (11), the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner has the authority to extend the term of the committee by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board will have the power to extend the term by a further period of one year. The term shall not to be extended W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 7 beyond the period of two years. Thus, the term of the committees is statutorily fixed. The term can be extended by one year or up to two years under certain unavoidable circumstances and no longer. The object of providing duration of office of Temple Advisory Committees in the approved byelaws is to see that timely elections are held and the constitution of the Committees are not delayed. The power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, which is fixed as per the approved byelaws, shall not be exercised as a matter of course. They shall call for report regarding the developmental work going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple concerned and apply their mind to the materials and form a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not. 8. In **Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KLT 324]** , this Court has reiterated the law laid down in **Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379]** and interfered with the extension of term of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple, Harippad on the ground that no development work in W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 8 connection with renovation of the Koothambalam commenced prior to 12.03.2019, the date on which the extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee by one year was granted by the Devaswom Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Clause (11) of the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 9. In the instant case, the revised estimate for the construction of Prasada Oottupura-cum-Tantrimadam of Karikkode Bhagavathy Temple is yet to be placed before the Board for administrative sanction. In such circumstances, the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee cannot seek extension of its term by one year for the purpose of undertaking that construction, since the request made by the petitioner is contrary to Clause (11) of the aforesaid Rules and also the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to prepare the revised estimate for the construction of Prasada Oottupura-cum-Tantrimadam of Karikkode Bhagavathy Temple and place the matter before the Board for administrative sanction, as expeditiously as possible, W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 9 at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and thereafter, place the matter before the learned Ombudsman for further orders. Other reliefs sought for in the writ petition are declined. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** Dxy W.P.(C)No.30355 of 2022 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30355/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY DATED 27.7.2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE THEN LEARNED OMBUDSMAN DATED 10.04.2013 ``` ``` Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 12.4.2013 IN WP(C)NO: 54/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` Exhibit P4 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 1.11.2013 IN CON.CASE (C)NO.1305/2013 IN WP(C)NO.54/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ```