Kumaran Namboothiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.23612 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` KUMARAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 62 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNA VARRIER, TC NO.55/2 150, DEVI NAGAR, KALADI, KARAMANA.P.0, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679513 ``` ``` BY ADV G. VIDYA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR.P.0, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003`** - **`2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER`** ``` TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.0., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 ``` - **`3 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER KILIROOR DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTAYAM GROUP, KILIROOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690514`** - **`4 ANILKUMAR T.B. AGED 57 YEARS`** ``` (RETIRED ON 31.05.2024), S/O BALAKRISHNAN, THUDIYIL (H), VENNIMALA, PAYYAPPADI P.O., PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686011 ``` - **`5 RAMACHANDRAN AGED 41 YEARS`** ``` S/O VIKRAMAN, PADIKKAMADOM, EAST GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141 ``` - **`6 SAJEESH S/O NARAYANAN NALI, DAISANA (H), THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686005`** 2 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 - **`7 PRASAD KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS (THAKIL), S/O NARAYANA PANICKER, NSS KARAYOGAMANDIRAM, PAKKIL P.0., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686005`** - **`8 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001`** - **`9 SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AUDIT, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.`** ``` [ADDL R8 AND ADDL R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/07/2024 IN IA NO 1/2024 IN WP(C) 23612/2024] ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SR. GP- SRI. S. RAJMOHAN ``` ``` SC, TDB- SRI. G. BIJU ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is a devotee, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner to consider Ext.P2 complaint dated 12.06.2024 and initiate appropriate actions against respondents 4 to 7, based on Ext.P1 FIR in Crime No.436 of 2024 of Kumarakom Police Station. That complaint is in respect of Kiliroor Kunnummel Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. Respondents 4 to 7 are arrayed as accused in that crime, alleging misappropriation of revenue and manipulation of receipts books. They are the temple employees of Travancore Devaswom Board, working in that temple. The 4[th] respondent is already retired from service. 2. By the order dated 03.07.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, the State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department, and the Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, were impleaded as additional respondents 8 and 9. The learned Senior Government 4 ## W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. 3. On 15.07.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, a copy of the Board Order No.R.O.C.14/24/Mis-B dated 08.07.2024 was made available for the perusal of this Court, whereby the posting of the 7[th] respondent Prasad Kumar, who is presently working as Thakil in Kiliroor Devaswom, as Thakil in Sabarimala Devaswom, vide the earlier order dated 28.06.2024 of the Devaswom Commissioner in-charge, stands cancelled, after considering Report No.839 dated 03.07.2024 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Kottayam. 4. By a separate order the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police) Travancore Devaswom Board is suo motu impleaded as the additional 10[th] respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Senior Government Pleader for additional respondents 8 and 9. Considering the nature of reliefs proposed to be granted, service of notice on respondents 4 to 7 is dispensed with. 5 ## W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 6. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision, and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. In view of the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 ME and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 ME shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 7. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with the duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper 6 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 8. As per Section 31 of the Act, which deals with the management of Devaswoms, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 9. In **Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [1975 KLT 55]** a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. 7 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 10. 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 the 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, tenancy or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence 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. 11. 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 8 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 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 has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 12. DBP No.2 of 2022 was registered suo motu, by the proceedings dated 31.01.2022, based on a news item that appeared in the Mathrubhumi online edition dated 30.01.2022 alleging huge corruption in the submission of fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House. As per that news report, top officials are behind disbanding the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The move was spearheaded by those fearing arrest if the fake bills submitted at Sabarimala Guest House and the irregularities in the toilet construction came out. Four officers, including two Sub Inspectors, were removed from the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. That DBP 9 ## W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 was disposed of by the order dated 14.02.2022 - **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411]** - by a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, with the directions contained in paragraph 33 of that order. 13. In view of the law laid down in **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411]** the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Kiliroor Kunnummel Devi Temple, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty-bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Kiliroor Kunnummel Devi Temple and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held in **Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55]** . Any improper act of the trustees could be 10 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 questioned by a worshiper. 14. In view of the law laid down in **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411]** the Travancore Devaswom Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Kiliroor Kunnummel Devi Temple are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The deity being a perpetual minor, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 15. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala filed SSCR No.11 of 2022, pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court in **Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411]** . That SSCR was disposed of by the order dated 27.06.2023 **[Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others** – **2023:KER:41764]** , wherein it was held that the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security 11 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 Officer in the report dated 07.07.2022 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee, which is one made based on Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing cannot be brushed aside by the Devaswom Commissioner, who is the disciplinary authority, or by the Board, without stating cogent reasons. The Devaswom Commissioner, while submitting his report before the Board, and the Board, while passing orders based on the recommendation of the Devaswom Commissioner, has to state cogent reasons for brushing aside the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The order passed by the Board should reflect proper application of mind, which has to be manifest from the order itself. 16. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit the Board has already ordered an enquiry in the matter by the additional 10[th] respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, without going into the merits of the complaint made by the petitioner in Ext.P2, by directing the additional 10[th] respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police) to 12 ## W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 consider the said complaint made by the petitioner as well in the enquiry conducted in the matter in question, pursuant to the orders issued by the Board. The concerned officer in the Vigilance wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall issue notice to the petitioner in the course of that enquiry. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE** MIN 13 W.P.(C)No.23612 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23612/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT - P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 436/2024, DATED 16.05.2024 EXHIBIT - P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 12.06.2024 ```