Malabar Devaswom Board Housefed Complex, Eranhippalam v. E. Sasidharan Embrandiri, Kerala State Human Rights Commission, State of Kerala and Sree Thrippallavur Devaswom

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944 ## WP(C) NO. 2699 OF 2021 ## PETITIONERS: - 1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P O, CALICUT-673006., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - 2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P O, CALICUT-673006. BY ADV SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ADV.RENJINI ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 E.SASIDHARAN EMBRANTHIRI, S/O E KRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI, KEEZH SANTHI, SREE THRIPPALLAVUR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVUR P O, PALAKKD-678688, RESIDING AT EDAMANA, GOKULAM, PALLAVUR P O, PALLAKKAD DISTRICT-678688. - 2 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, 4TH FLOOR TURBO PLUS TOWER PMG ROAD, JUNCTION, NEAR, P MG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. - 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. - 4 SREE THRIPPALLAVUR DEVASWOM PALLAVUR P O, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD -678688, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER. BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN C.MENON SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 2 :: ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 9[th] day of February 2023 ## S.MANIKUMAR, C.J. The first petitioner is a Devaswom Board constituted as per the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the second petitioner is its Commissioner. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, dated 07.10.2020, passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in H.R.M.P.No.476/11/10/2020/PKD, by which, Kerala State Human Right Commission observed that the delay in disbursement of salary arrears is injustice and hence, directed the Devaswom Principal Secretary, as well as the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to pay 50% of the salary arrears at the earliest. 3. Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows: i) call for the records leading to Ext.P3 ii) declare that the second respondent Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the 1[st] respondent. iii) issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P3 order dated 7.10.2020, passed by the second respondent, in WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 3 :: ## Ext.P1 complaint bearing No.HRMP No.476/11/10/2020/PD. 4. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, this court’s attention was drawn to the judgment of this court in W.P.(C)No.18537/2020 dated 5[th] July 2022, filed by the very same complainant namely, Sri.E.Sasidharan Embrandiri, against the State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Revenue (Devaswom) Department in which, this court held thus: “13. It may also be contextually relevant to note that, as per Section 8B(2) of the Act, the Board has the power to fix and regulate the service conditions and pay structure of the officers and employees of the temples from time to time and to supervise its implementation. Under Section 38, the Commissioner has to publish a list of religious institution, whose annual income is not less than the amount calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution under Section 76. As per Section 76(1), religious institution listed under Section 38 are bound to pay to the Board annual contribution not exceeding 5 per centum of its income. Section 80 provides for grant from the Government to the Board, for being utilised for the purpose of the Act and Section 81 provides for constitution of a fund called the Malabar Devaswom Fund. Section 81(c) (1) casts a duty on the Board to prepare a budget showing the probable receipts and disbursements of the temples, institutions and endowments under the WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 4 :: management of the Board during the financial year. The above provisions give adequate indication that under the scheme of the Act also, the Government and the Board are bound to provide funds for the maintenance of temples and payment of salary to the employees. The above discussion leads to the only conclusion that, in view of the decision of the Division Bench and the provisions of the Act referred above, the salary of the petitioners is liable to be paid, despite the financial bar fixed by the Government orders. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay eligible salary to the petitioners as per the pay fixation orders. The necessary funds for this purpose shall be made available by the Government in terms of direction Nos.8 and 9 in In Re: Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area. The arrears of salary due to the petitioners shall be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In W.P.(C) No.12582 of 2021, this Court has already issued directions to disburse petitioner's salary as per Ext.P5 and P7 judgments. In the light of the directions in the afore judgments and the findings herein, entire eligible salary shall be paid to the petitioner from 01.08.2022 onwards and arrears of salary shall be disbursed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 5. In addition to the above, inviting the attention of this court to Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001, WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 5 :: Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Commission may dismiss in limine the complaints with respect to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute and hence, the second respondent, Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the first respondent. 6. Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 reads thus: The Commission may dismiss inlimine cmplaints of the following nature: (a) illegible; (b) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; (c) trivial or frivolous; (d) barred under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 36 of the Act. (e) allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant; (f) issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute; (g) allegations do not raise any violation of human rights; (h) if the matter raised is subjudice before a court or tribunal; (i) the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission; (j)where the complaint is only a copy of the petition addressed to some other authority; (k) where the petition is not signed or where the original petition is not sent to the Commission; WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 6 :: - (l) where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground. 7. On the facts and circumstances of this case, reliance is also made on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Remdeo Chanhan v. Bani Kartha Das reported in 2010 (4) KLT SN 95 and the decision of this court in Malabar Cements Limited v. Baburajan reported in 2019 (3) KLT 609. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Mr.Mohan C. Menon, learned counsel for the first respondent fairly agreed that the complaint was preferred on 19[th] March 2020 before the State Kerala Human Rights Commission. It is further submitted that W.P. (C)No.18537/2020 was also filed by the first respondent, in which judgment dated 5[th] July 2022 has been passed by this court. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute that the issue raised before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and in W.P.(C)No.18537/20 are WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 7 :: one and the same, preferred by the complainant/ respondent No.1 and this court passed judgment dated 5[th] July 2020 in W.P.(C)No.18537/20 also. 11. In the light of the above discussion and taking note of the decisions cited supra, we are of the view that the order passed by the second respondent – the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the first respondent is liable to be set aside, on the grounds of jurisdiction and accordingly we do so. Writ petition is disposed of. sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE jes WP(C)NO.2699 OF 2021 :: 8 :: ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: - EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18/1/2020, PREFERRED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/03/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/10/2020.ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN HRMP NO. 476/11/10/2020/PKD, AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WPC NO. 18537/2020 PREFERRED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT WITHOUT EXHIBITS. - EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO GO(MS) NO.277/2019/REV. DATED 3/9/2019, AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS HEREIN, WHO ARE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN WPC NO. 18537/2020, AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ## // TRUE COPY // ## P.S. TO JUDGE