P. Sunil Kumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others

1 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.42101 OF 2022`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` P.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. P.V.RAMANAIAH PUSHPALA, PALLURUTHY NADA, KOCHI-682006. ``` ``` BY ADV RESMI A. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` - **`1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680020.`** - **`2 DEVASWOM OFFICER, AZHAKIYAKAVU DEVASWOM, PALLURUTHI NADA, KOCHI-682006.`** - **`3 AZHAKIYAKAVU KSHETHRA UPADESAKA SAMITHI, AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE, PALLURUTHY NADA, KOCHI682006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.G.SURA.`** - **`4 ADDL.R4. A.G.SURA, ALUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682007`** - **`5 ADDL. R5. P.M.KRISHNAN, CHILPOORAM HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI VAZHI, PALLURUTHY,KOCHI - 682007`** - **`6 ADDL. R6. SHANMUGHAN PILLA, ROHINI BHAVAN, CHUMATHARA PARAMBU,`** 2 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ## **`PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682007`** - **`7 ADDL. R7. K.R.AMBIKA W/O.P.M.KRISHNAN, CHILPOORAM, KUMBALANGI VAZHI, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682007`** - **`8 ADDL. R8. GOVIND V., THEVARKKATTU HOUSE, P. GANGADHARAN ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006`** - **`9 ADDL.R9.RAJESH BALIKA, CHILAMBI PARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLAR DESHAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI -682006`** - **`10 ADDL. R10. K.N.MAHESH, KUMAROTHU VEEDU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006`** - **`11 ADDL. R11, K.D.SUDHIR, KUNDE PARAMBU HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI -682001`** - **`12 ADDL. R12. K.S.BIJU MON, KARTHIKA, BINNY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI -682006`** - **`13 ADDL. R13. KANNAN MOHANDAS, ASWATHY, INDIRA NAGAR ROARD SN, PALLURUTHY. KOCHI - 682006`** - **`14 ADDL. R14. V.T. BIJU, S/O. THANKAPPAN, VARYAMS HOUSE, SDPY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI- 682006`** - **`15 ADDL. R15. K.V. VINU, 18/1412 KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, EMS SMRITHY LANE, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682005`** - **`16 ADDL. R16 K.K.ANIL KUMAR, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, VENKITACHALAPATHI STREET, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006`** - **`17 ADDL. R17. ARUN, 12/798, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, ESI ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006`** 3 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ``` 18 ADDL. R18. N.D.UNNI, NACHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBEDKAR ROAD, EDAKKOCHI - 682010 19 ADDL. R19. VINEESH.T.S EDACHANI PARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006 ``` ``` 20 ADDL. R20. KAILAS K.B, KURUPPU THARA, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006 21 ADDL. R21. ANEESH K.L, KALAKKANJERI HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682006 (ADDL. R4 TO R21 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19-10-2023 IN IA.NO.2 of 2023 IN WPC.No.42101 of 2022) ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.P. SUDHEER ADVOCATE P.SREEKUMAR RENOY VINCENT(K/000580/2017) HELEN P.A.(K/000084/2019) ARUN ROY(K/413/2019) SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI(K/000584/2019) ALEESHA SHEREEF(K/1959/2022) ATHUL ROY(K/1345/2022) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SRI K.P.SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL- COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Azhakiyakavu Bhagavathi Temple, which is a temple under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 28.10.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby a Temple Advisory Committee of Azhakiyakavu Temple, consisting of those included in that order, who were later impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 21 in this writ petition, was constituted by way of nomination, since there was no consensus among the members of the registered mandalam in the meeting convened on 14.08.2022 to constitute the Temple Advisory Committee. By the said order, the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Officer of Azhakiyakavu Devaswom was authorized to nominate a SC/ST member in the Temple Advisory Committee. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to constitute a proper Temple Advisory Committee, after excluding persons who were in the 2011, Punarudharana Committee and Thalappoli Agosha 5 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 Committee. 2. On 22.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 3[rd] respondent Azhakiyakavu Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee), returnable by 04.01.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board sought time to get instructions. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, by the order dated 19.10.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023, the members of the 3[rd] respondent Temple Advisory Committee were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 21. 4. The 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Officer, Azhakiyakavu Devaswom has filed a counter affidavit dated 12.01.2023, producing therewith Exts.R2(A) to R2(I) documents. The 3[rd] respondent Temple Advisory Committee has also filed a counter affidavit dated 17.01.2023. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 07.02.2023, producing therewith Exts.P7 to P15 as additional documents. The said reply affidavit was followed by I.A.No.4 of 2023, seeking an order to accept Exts.P17 to P43 as additional documents, I.A.No.5 of 2023, seeking an order to accept Exts.P44 6 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 as an additional document and I.A.No.6 of 2023, to accept Exts.P45 and P46 as additional documents. 5. On 15.11.2023, during the course of arguments, one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there is no SC/ST member in the Temple Advisory Committee of Azhakiyakavu Devaswom, constituted as per Ext.P4 order dated 28.10.2022. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions on the above aspect. 6. On 20.11.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that there is no member in the Temple Advisory Committee constituted vide Ext.P4 order dated 28.10.2022, from SC/ST category, since none of the members in the registered mandalam belonging to that category, who had participated in the general body, are not willing to become a member of that committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions and accordingly, the matter was adjourned. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the 1[st] respondent, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Temple Advisory Committee and also the learned counsel for the additional 7 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 respondents. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order dated 28.10.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby a new Temple Advisory Committee was constituted in Azhakiyakavu Devaswom by way of nomination. 9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the meeting of registered mandalam, which was held on 14.08.2022, there was no consensus among the members, for electing the members of the Temple Advisory Committee. Instead of adjourning the meeting, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report before the Devaswom Commissioner, based on which Ext.P4 order was passed by the 1[st] respondent Board, constituting the Temple Advisory Committee of Azhakiyakavu Devaswom, by way of nomination. 10. The constitution of Temple Advisory Committee in a temple under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board is governed by the provisions in the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of the Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The said Bye-laws provides for constitution of Temple Advisory Committee by way of nomination, 8 ## W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 when there is no consensus among the members of the registered mandalam, in electing the members of the Temple Advisory Committee. When the procedure adopted by the 1[st] respondent Board in constituting the Temple Advisory Committee for Azhakiyakavu Devaswom, by way of nomination in Ext.P4 order is one in terms of the provisions contained in the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Act, the said order requires no interference in this writ petition, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the Cochin Devaswom Board to constitute a Temple Advisory Committee in Azhakiyakavu Devaswom by excluding persons who were in the tainted committees namely, Temple Advisory Committees from 2006-2011, Punarudhara Committee and Thalappoli Agosha Committee. 12. As already noticed hereinbefore, none of the newly elected members of the 3[rd] respondent Azhakiyakavu Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) were made parties to this writ petition. Though they were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 21, by the order dated 19.10.2023 in 9 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 I.A.No.2 of 2023, the petitioner has not chosen to amend the statement of facts of the writ petition, in order to make specific allegations against such persons. After the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has produced various additional documents along with the reply affidavit dated 07.02.2023 and along with I.A.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2023. 13. In **Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC** **534]** the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to 10 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ## it. ## 14. In **M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat** **[(1998) 4 SCC 387]** the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3 and 4". The Apex Court held that, it is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non compliance 11 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. On the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings. ## 15. In **Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya** **Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the 12 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. 16. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, without making specific allegations against the additional respondents, by way of amendment of the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to constitute a proper Temple Advisory Committee in Azhakiyakavu Devaswom, after excluding those who 13 ## W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 were in the previous Temple Advisory Committees for the period from 2006-2011, Punarudharana Committee and Thalapoli Agosha Committee. In the result, this writ petition fails on the aforesaid reasons and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, in case he is having any grievance regarding the activities of the 3[rd] respondent Azhakiyakavu Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi, with specific reference to the provisions under the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN 14 ## W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42101/2022`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`EXHIBIT P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.M4.2/13 DATED`**| ||**`10.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,`**| ||**`OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`THRIPPUNITHURA BEFORE THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`**| ||**`IN WP(C) NO.17587/22 DATED 17.8.2022.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY`**| ||**`DATED 14.8.2022.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE`**| ||**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 28.10.2022.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE`**| ||**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 22.11.2022.`**| |**`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( A )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 7549/2015 DATED`**| ||**`20.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |**`EXHIBIT P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`**| ||**`IN WP(C) NO.32321/19 DATED 18.12.2019.`**| |**`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( B )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23/06/2022 IN WRIT`**| ||**`PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 15003 OF 2021 PASSED BY THIS`**| ||**`HONOURABLE COURT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( C )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 17167/2021 DATED`**| ||**`24/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( D )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE`**| ||**`SECRETARY OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM`**| ||**`THALAPPOLI AGHOSHA COMMITTEE.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( E )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 17167/2021 DATED`**| ||**`26/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.`**| 15 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( F )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT DATED 10/10/2022`**| |---|---| ||**`SUBMITTED BY M.P.JAYAKUMAR, AUDITOR TO THE SECOND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( G )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. M4. 716/20 DATED`**| ||**`21/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE ASST COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`THRIPUNITHURA GROUP TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( H )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 29/12/2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE VIGILANCE ASSISTANT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD TO`**| ||**`THE FIRST RESPONDENT`**| |**`EXHIBIT R2 ( I )`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. M4. 8552/22 DATED`**| ||**`31/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE ASST COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`THRIPUNITHURA GROUP.`**| |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |**`EXHIBIT P-7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.01.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE VIGILANCE`**| ||**`REPORT OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT WITH READABLE COPY`**| ||**`DATED 25.01.2016`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL`**| ||**`VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER DATED 18.11.2022`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF`**| ||**`INVESTIGATION TO MR. P.C. UNNIKRISHNAN DATED`**| ||**`20.09.2022`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-11`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF`**| ||**`POLICE(VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU) TO`**| ||**`MR. P.C. UNNIKRISHNAN DATED 20.08.2022`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-12`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MR.`**| ||**`SURESH PADAKKARA UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT`**| ||**`BEFORE THE DEVASWOM OFFICER DATED 28.01.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-13`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`OFFICER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED`**| ||**`31.01.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-14`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 16TH RESPONDENT`**| ||**`DATED 17.01.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT P-15`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LISTS OF THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN`**| ||**`THE UPADESHAKA SAMITHI FROM 2006-2016`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI FROM 2016-2021 THALAPOLI`**| 16 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ``` COMMITTEE FROM 2021-2022 AND THE UPADESHAKA SAMITHI 2022 DATED NIL ``` ``` EXHIBIT P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 0797/2023 OF THE PALLURUTHY KASABA POLICE STATION DATED 25.03.2023 EXHIBIT .P-17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 18.11.2011 EXHIBIT .P-18 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2016 WITH LEGIBLE COPY EXHIBIT .P-19 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEVASWOM OFFICER,AZHAKIYAKAVU DEVASWOM DATED 15.07.2023 WITH LEGIBLE COPY EXHIBIT .P-20 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING KSHETHRA GOPURAM DATED 03.10.2023 EXHIBIT. P-21 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF 'KOZHI ANNAM' OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER TO AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE DATED 26.07.2023 EXHIBIT .P-22 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE TEMPLE POND DATED 16.10.2022 EXHIBIT .P-22(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE ENTRANCE TOWARDS THE TEMPLE POND DATED 16.10.2022 EXHIBIT .P-22(B) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PREMISES OF THE TEMPLE DATED 16.10.2022 EXHIBIT. P-23 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE AREA BEHIND "SREE MOOLA STHAANAM"DATED 16.10.2022 EXHIBIT .P-24 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING AALTHARA DATED 25.07.2022 EXHIBIT. P-25 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.SURESH PADAKARA BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 17.04.2023 ``` 17 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 |**`EXHIBIT .P-26`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ISSUED BY THE`**| |---|---| ||**`OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN`**| ||**`DEVASWOM BOARD TO SRI. SURESH PADAKARA DATED`**| ||**`10.05.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-27`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT OF`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI`**| ||**`TEMPLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2016 TO 31.03.2017`**| ||**`DATED 20.03.2023 WITH LEGIBLE COPY`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-28`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT OF`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI`**| ||**`TEMPLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2017 TO 31.03.2018`**| ||**`DATED 20.03.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-29`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT OF`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI`**| ||**`TEMPLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2018 TO 31.03.2019`**| ||**`DATED 20.03.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-30`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT OF`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI`**| ||**`TEMPLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2019 TO 31.03.2020`**| ||**`DATED 20.03.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-31`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT OF`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI`**| ||**`TEMPLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2020 TO 31.03.2021`**| ||**`DATED 20.03.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-32`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT OF`**| ||**`PUNARUDHARANA SAMITHI OF AZHAKIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI`**| ||**`TEMPLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2021 TO 28.12.2021`**| ||**`DATED 20.03.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-33`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE ADVISORY`**| ||**`COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.07.2011 TO`**| ||**`31.03.2012 DATED NIL`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-34`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE ADVISORY`**| ||**`COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD OF 2012-2013 DATED NIL`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-35`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE ADVISORY`**| ||**`COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD OF 2013-2014 DATED NIL`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-36`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE ADVISORY`**| 18 W.P.(C)No.42101 of 2022 ||**`COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD OF 2014-2015 DATED NIL`**| |---|---| |**`EXHIBIT .P-37`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.`**| ||**`SURESH PADAKARA UNDER RTI ACT BEFORE THE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`OFFICER& STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF`**| ||**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 20.06.2022`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-38`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`OFFICER& STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO`**| ||**`SRI.SURESH PADAKARA DATED NIL`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-39`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO`**| ||**`SRI.P.C.UNNIKRISHNAN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE`**| ||**`ENGINEER OF KOCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED`**| ||**`16.05.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-40`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE`**| ||**`DISTRICT EMPOWERMENT OFFICER OF THE LOCAL SELF`**| ||**`GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM BEFORE THE JOINT`**| ||**`DIRECTOR/ PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`**| ||**`DATED 06.07.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-41`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN KERALA`**| ||**`KAUMUDI DAILY REGARDING THE CORRUPTION IN THE`**| ||**`RENOVATION OF AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE POND DATED`**| ||**`02.09.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-42`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.`**| ||**`SURESH PADAKARA BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC`**| ||**`INFORMATION OFFICER& DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF`**| ||**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 10.07.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-43`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY STATE PUBLIC`**| ||**`INFORMATION OFFICER& DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF`**| ||**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD TO SRI. SURESH PADAKARA`**| ||**`DATED 09.08.2023`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-44`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOARD DATED`**| ||**`19.10.2023 INSTALLED IN AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE BY`**| ||**`THE 3RD RESPONDENT`**| |**`EXHIBIT .P-45`**|**`TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE`**| ||**`CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS UNLOADED IN PALLURUTHI`**| ||**`AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE PREMISES DATED NIL`**| |**`EXHIBIT. P-46`**|**`TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS DATED 04.11.2023`**| ||**`SHOWING OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN PALLURUTHI`**| ||**`AZHAKIYAKAVU TEMPLE`**|