Manikandan and Biju 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 G. GIRISH`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/16TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 35861 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 MANIKANDAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, ALAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL MANAKKARA, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690 521`** - **`2 BIJU, AGED 48 YEARS, VILAYILVASKATHIL, MANAKKARA, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690 521 BY ADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYA T.P. MAHADEV M.J.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE [PO] THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 003`** - **`2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE [PO], THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695 003`** - **`3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN – 690 518`** - **`4 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 521`** - **`5 THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT R. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREEDHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE,`** ..2.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 ``` SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 521 ``` - **`6 R. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREEDHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 521`** ``` 7 R. PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, SECRETARY, THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SHASTHAMCOTTA SREEDHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE, SHASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 521 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.G.SANTHOSHKUMAR – SC, TDB KRISHNA MANI B. N.V.SANDHYA(K/438/2002) DHANUJA M.S(K/001519/2018) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ..3.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are the devotees of Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the term of the 5[th] respondent Temple Advisory Committee of that temple is extended for a period of six months (till 31.07.2024). The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the term of the present Temple Advisory Committee of Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple cannot be extended, as the same violates Clause 11 of the Rules (bye-laws) regarding formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to cover the Flag-Mast with Copper Drums in Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, till a final decision is taken in R.P.Nos.829 of 2023, 1029 of 2023, 1049 of 2023 and R.P. with Filing No.1061 of 2023, which are ..4.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 ## pending before this Court. 2. On 01.11.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 5 to 7, returnable by 02.11.2023, at 2.00 p.m. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. By a detailed order, this Court granted an interim stay of operation of Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent, whereby the term of the 5[th] respondent Temple Advisory Committee stands extended for a period of six months (till 31.07.2024). In the said order, it was made clear that the activities in the temple shall be managed by the 4[th] respondent Sub Group Officer, under the direct supervision of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. 3. Respondents 5 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit dated 02.11.2023, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(g) documents. After considering the rival contentions, by a detailed order dated 03.11.2023, this Court clarified that the interim order granted on 01.11.2023, will not stand in the way of the ceremony in connection with the installation of Flag-Mast in Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple being proceeded ..5.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 with. By the said order, the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel, relating to Ext.P5 order were directed to be kept in safe custody by Registrar (Judicial). 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 7. 5. We notice that the Special Leave Petition (Filing No.39144 of 2023) filed against Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 22.06.2023 in W.P.(C)No.13238 of 2021 stands disposed of by the order of the Apex Court dated 03.10.2023 declining interference. The said order of the Apex Court reads thus; ## “Delay condoned. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 6. The issue raised in this writ petition, which is one filed by the devotees of Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, centres around the installation of a Flag-Mast in that temple. The dispute is between the petitioners and the 5[th] respondent Temple Advisory Committee, ..6.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 ## in which respondents 6 and 7 are the office bearers. 7. The installation of Flag-Mast in the said temple was the subject matter in W.P.(C)No.1190 of 2023 and connected cases. Those writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.06.2023, granting permission to the Travancore Devaswom Board to erect the copper-covered Flag-Mast in the temple. In the said judgment, it was made clear that it is for the Travancore Devaswom Board to take steps to evolve the modalities for erection of the Flag-Mast. 8. Seeking review of Ext.P2 judgment, R.P.Nos.826, 1029, 1049 of 2023 and un-numbered R.P.No.1061 of 2023 are filed before this Court, which are pending consideration. When unnumbered R.P.No.1061 of 2023, which was filed by a third party, along with I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking leave, was listed before the Bench on 25.10.2023, a copy of the review petition was served on the learned counsel for the Temple Advisory Committee and his name was also shown in the cause list. 9. The Temple Advisory Committee filed W.P.(C)No.35371 of 2023, seeking police protection, in which the petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents 12 and 13. On 27.10.2023, when that writ petition came up for consideration, a learned ..7.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order directing the police to see that no law and order situation arises at the temple premises in connection with the hosting of the FlagMast, which is scheduled to be held on 03.11.2023. 10. On 1.11.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 to 7 returnable by 02.11.2023. at 2.00 p.m. On 01.11.2023, this Court granted an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent, whereby the term of the 5[th] respondent Temple Advisory Committee stands extended for a period of six months (till 31.07.2024). It was also directed that the activities in the temple shall be managed by the 4[th] respondent Sub Group Officer, under the direct supervision of the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of that order read thus; “2. The constitution of Temple Advisory Committee in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board is governed by the provisions under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and also the Rules (bye laws) made ..8.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 thereunder, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act. 3. In **Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KHC 663]** a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party held that the power of the Devaswom Commissioner to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be exercised as a matter of course. Paragraph 56 and 59 of that judgment read thus; “56. Though the extension granted to the Temple Advisory Committee, after expiry of its original term of two years, for a period of one year by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner and for a further period of one year by the 1[st] respondent Board, was for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam, the pleadings and materials on record would not show as to whether the Temple Advisory Committee has commenced any development activity in connection with the Koothambalam, before the expiry of its original term of two years. It is also not discernible as to whether any such development activity was commenced by the Temple Advisory Committee, within the extended term of one year. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the extension of term granted by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, for one year after the expiry of the original term of two years, is without application of mind to the materials placed before him. The further extension of one year term (six months each) granted by the 1[st] respondent Board, invoking its powers under Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, is - also vitiated by total non application of mind, since at the time of granting such extension by the Board, respondents 6 to 10, who were the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee, have not obtained 'Anunja' from the Deity for commencing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. On the basis of the extension of the term granted by the 1[st] ..9.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 respondent Board, the Temple Advisory Committee continued and just before the expiry of the one year term, an 'Anunja' ceremony was conducted on 04.03.2021, as evidenced by Annexure R1(f) letter dated 01.03.2021 of the Thantri. On the strength of that 'Anunja', Annexure R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021 was made before the 4[th] respondent, much after the expiry of the maximum term of four years, seeking permission to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam. It was based on the aforesaid request, which was forwarded to the 3[rd] respondent vide Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021 and recommended by the 3[rd] respondent in Ext.R1(a) report dated 22.07.2021 submitted to the 2[nd] respondent, that the decision of the 1[st] respondent Board was taken to constitute an Ad-hoc Committee for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. 59. As already noticed, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (2) and Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act. The term of the Temple Advisory Committee is two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner, who has the authority to extend the term by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board has the power to extend the term by a further period of one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. In view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. In view of the prohibition contained in clause (18), a person, who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee is not eligible to continue as such, continuously exceeding the ..10.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 term of two Committees. Respondents 6 to 10 were in the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years from 13.03.2017 till 12.03.2021. As held by this Court in **Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2021 (3) KHC 379]** the power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be exercised as a matter of course. The Devaswom Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall call for a report regarding the developmental works going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple and apply its mind to the materials and take a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not.” 4. Ext.P5 order is one issued in a cyclostyled proforma, which is reproduced hereunder; **==> picture [217 x 187] intentionally omitted <==** 5. In **Santu Thomas v. Joint Regional Trasport Officer, Vaikom [2018 (1) KLT 377]** , in the context of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court held that an order issued by the Licensing Authority on a printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here and there by filling the blanks makes the appellate jurisdiction nugatory and ineffective inasmuch as, such an order passed in a mechanical exercise of power will be of little assistance to the appellate authority, while analyzing the reasoning essential to such a decision. ..11.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 6. As evident from Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023, even after the law laid down by this Court in **Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663]** , the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner (P&SGRC), on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner is issuing orders granting extension of term for Temple Advisory Committees, openly flouting the directions contained in that decision. 7. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we prima facie find that Ext.P5 order is one issued openly flouting the law laid down by this Court in **Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663]** .” 11. On 01.11.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023 issued on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, whereby the term of the Temple Advisory Committee stands extended by 6 months (till 31.07.2024). In the order dated 01.11.2023, this Court noticed that the extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee from January, 2024, granted vide Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023, is one issued in violation of the law laid down by this Court in **Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KHC 663]** . As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the judgment of this Court in **Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663]** , the Devaswom Commissioner has issued a circular dated 30.04.2022, on the question of extension of the term of Temple ..12.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 Advisory Committees under the management of the Board. 12. As noticed in the order dated 01.11.2023, as per Ext.R5(b) notice produced along with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 7, preliminary steps for installation of the Flag- Mast was scheduled to take place on 07.11.2023 (today) between 12.05 p.m. and 12.30 p.m. in Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. Though the petitioner has raised various contentions with reference to the averments in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, this Court did not consider those aspects in the order dated 01.11.2023, since the ceremony is scheduled to be held on that day at 12.05 p.m. In the order dated 01.11.2023 it was made clear that all those aspects can be considered in this writ petition, later. 13. As already noticed hereinbefore, the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition (Filing No.39144 of 2023) filed against Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.06.2023 in W.P.(C)No.13238 of 2021 declined interference in the permission granted by this Court to the Travancore Devaswom Board to erect a copper covered Flag-Mast in the temple. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board not to cover the Flag-Mast of ..13.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 Sasthamcottah Sree Dharma Sastha Temple with copper drums. 14. As held by this Court in **Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290]** and **Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala [2023** **(3) KHC 491]** , in view of the provisions under Section 15A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Sasthamcotta Sree Dharma Sastha Temple are performed promptly. 15. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition the petitioners have pointed out that as per the custom and traditions FlagMast cannot be installed during ‘Dakshinayanam’. Festival flag hosting and installation of Flag-Mast are done only during ‘Utharayanam’. The pleadings and materials on record would not show that the petitioners have pointed out the said aspect before the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board or the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom commissioner by submitting proper representations. It is for the petitioners to raise their grievance on the above aspect by approaching respondents 1 and 2 with a ..14.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 proper representation, in which event, the said respondents shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision with notice to both sides. 16. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023, is one issued in violation of the law laid down by this Court in **Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KHC 663]** . After the judgment of this Court, the Devaswom Commissioner has issued a circular dated 30.04.2022, on the question of extension of the term of Temple Advisory Committees under the management of the Board. 17. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the term of the 5[th] respondent Temple Advisory Committee is extended for a period of six months (till 31.07.2024). Since the term of the existing committee will expire only by 31.01.2024, going by Ext.R5(f), the 5[th] respondent Committee can be permitted to continue in office till then. The question as to whether the 5[th] respondent Committee can be granted extension of term, requires reconsideration by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom ..15.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 Commissioner, with specific reference to the law laid down by this Court in **Sunil Kumar C. and [2022 (4) KHC 663]** and Circular No.ROC 5455/22/NS-2 dated 30.04.2022 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, with notice to the petitioners and also respondents 5 to 7, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While taking such a decision, the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner shall consider the question as to whether the request for extension of term by the 5[th ] respondent Temple Advisory Committee, for the purpose of installation of the FlagMast in the temple would be in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra. Registry shall return the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board after obtaining a proper acknowledgment. The decision taken by the 2[nd] respondent shall be a ‘reasoned order’, taking note of the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. Sd/- Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** ded ..16.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35861/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2017 IN DBP NO.61 OF 2013 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/06/2023 IN W.P.(C).NO.1190/2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BROACHER ISSUED DATE NIL ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 09/10/2023 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI COMMUNICATION DATED 28/07/2023 Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.03.2016 IN WP© 3117 OF 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit-R5(c) A True copy of the chart issued by the astrologer dated 10/7/2023. Exhibit-R5(a) True copy of the Muhoortham chart received from the astrologer pertaining to the installation of the Flag mast dated 1/10/2023 Exhibit-R5(b) A True copy of the notice mentioning the details of the ceremonies to be held on 3/11/2023. Exhibit-R5(e) True copy of the interim order dated 31/10/2023 in W.P.(C) No.35371/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. Exhibit-R5(f) A True copy of the relevant page of the order dated 1/2/2022 issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Exhibit-R5(d) A True copy of the relevant pages of W.P.(C) No.35371/2023 dated 26/10/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, ``` ..17.. WP(C) No.35861 of 2023 ## **`Ernakulam.`** ``` Exhibit-R5(g) A True copy of the order dated 5/10/2023 of the Travancore Devaswom Board. ```