P. V. Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` W.P.(C)NO.15950OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` P. V. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT PRASADAM, ELANKOOR P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 677172 ``` ``` BY ADVS. C.RAJENDRAN R.S.SREEVIDYA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001`** - **`2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 670006`** - **`3 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DEWASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, IRANTHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 670006`** - **`4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KADAMPUZHA DEVASWOM, KADAMPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676553`** - **`5 THE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVTHI DEVASWOM TRUST, KADAMPUZHA DEVASWOM, P.O. KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY *[THE HEREDITORY TRUSTEE], PIN-676553`** 2 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 ``` *THE WORD ‘THE TRUSTEE’ SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS BY ‘THE HEREDITORY TRUSTEE' AS PER THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2023 IN WP(C) 15950/2023 ``` ``` R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S. RAJ MOHAN, ``` ``` R2 & R3 BY SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R., SC MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN K.MOHANAKANNAN D.S.THUSHARA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ mandamus commanding the respondents not to conduct again the inauguration of the dialysis centre and super specialty hospital of Kadampuzha Devaswom, on 16.05.2023, or any other date. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to reimburse the amount spent for conducting the inauguration of the dialysis centre from the funds of Kadampuzha Devaswom and the Malabar Devaswom Board; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 not to collect any amount from any Devaswom or temples coming under Malabar Devaswom Board for publishing the souvenir or any publication in connection with the inauguration of the dialysis centre. 2. On 16.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1[st] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 2 and 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 and 5, returnable by 24.05.2023. On 16.05.2023, during 4 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inauguration of the dialysis centre is already over at 11.30 a.m. The learned counsel pointed out the direction contained in Ext.P2 communication dated 02.05.2023 of the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is addressed to the Executive Officer/Chairman/Managing Trustee of the controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby all those controlled institutions are authorized to spend an amount of Rs.15,000/- each for releasing advertisement in the supplement to be published in connection with the inauguration of the free dialysis centre at the Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Temple, by the Chief Minister of Kerala. By the order dated 16.05.2023, this Court granted stay of operation of Ext.P2 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto for a period of one month. The 3[rd] respondent Commissioner was directed to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which Ext.P2 communication has been issued to all Devaswoms which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, requiring them to spend an amount of Rs.15,000/- for releasing advertisement in the supplement in question. 3. On 24.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer entered appearance through counsel. This Court passed a detailed order on 24.05.2023. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of that order read thus; 5 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 “6. By the order dated 16.05.2023, this Court stayed the operation of Ext.P2 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto for a period of one month and the 3[rd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner was directed to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which the said communication was issued to all Devaswoms, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, - requiring them to spend an amount of Rs.15,000/ for releasing advertisements in the supplement in question. 7. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board seeks further time to file affidavit. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that around 1,400 temples are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. 8. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer seeks time to file counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the 4[th] respondent shall furnish the details of the amount spent from the Devaswom funds for conducting inauguration on 16.05.2023 and for the activities connected with that meeting and also the constitution of the Board or committee, which is managing the dialysis centre.” 4. On 31.05.2023, the 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.05.2023. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom is a renowned super grade temple of north Malabar, which is marked by its own fame and glory among the devotees not only in Kerala but 6 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 from outside also. Since the temple is one having surplus funds, the trustee had proposed to develop the charitable clinic, running under the temple, at about for more than two decades, into a charitable hospital and dialysis center. The proposal was approved and Malabar Devaswom Board had approved plan and estimate of the Hospital Complex was approved as per order bearing No.J6-5411/2021 dated 17.1.2022 for the estimated and sum of Rs.4,83,00,000/-(Rupees four crore eighty three lakhs only) to extend free medical treatment and dialysis, by utilizing the social responsibility fund from companies and donations from individuals and other establishments. 4. As such, the temple has been accepting funds from lawful sources, for sustainability of the charity. The trial run of the dialysis center was conducted on 31.01.2023. The hospital complex and dialysis center was inaugurated by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala on 16.5.2023. The petitioner alleged that the inauguration was conducted on 31.01.2023 and again a second inauguration had been conducted on 16.05.2023, unnecessarily and hence seeks to reimburse the amount already expended for the purpose. But there was no expenditure for the trial run on 31.01.2023, for which there was no function in any manner. 5. As a matter of fact, Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Temple, being famous among the devotees as a place of spirituality had been elevated as an epitome of charity, due to the decision to construct and maintain a charitable hospital and dialysis center, as a guiding factor that dharma has to be practiced and continued, by mustering the support of the devotees. The project being a pioneering one taken over by a temple 7 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 unprecedented in the country, it has to be publicized to the possible extent, for philanthropic contribution from all over to maintain it in the pristine condition as a resort of especially poor kidney patients, since the medical treatment and dialysis are intended to be administered free by all means. So the trial run of the dialysis center was conducted on 31.01.2023, which has been interpreted falsely as the inauguration for which there was no function at all and it was done as usual. The inauguration was actually on 16.05.2023, by that Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala, in order to make it a grand event made known all over to array the whole humane persons and establishments behind the righteous project, so that contribution will flow generously so as to enable the temple known as an abode of dharma, without having any or heavy financial burden to the temple. The temples under Malabar Devaswom Board had the approved budget sanction under the head advertisement. They had given their advertisement in the supplement, which will become beneficial to all those institutions and hence the Ext.P2 letter. 6. The temple management is striving hard to make the Charitable project successful, by generous contribution from all over the country and abroad, and hence the inauguration was duly publicized, for which the media had given full support, and hence it was agreed upon to publish a supplement by accepting advertisement of the temples. Hence the Ext.P2 was issued to enable those temples to expend funds. Even though Sree Kadampuzha Devaswom had some surplus funds, it would be impossible for the temple alone to finance the daily maintenance of the dialysis center and hence the contribution from the devotees were decided to be accepted, and for which 8 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 wide publicity was given which will be necessarily be beneficial to the temple, in the long run. 7. The inauguration of 16.5.2021 was the first inauguration of the project, and the trial was in January which was misconceived as the inauguration and hence the complaint, which is unsustainable. Even though Sree Kadampuzha Temple had to expend some amount, which would become beneficial hereafter. Righteousness and piety are the most renowned religious marks, and quintessence of humanity and faith, and so that the temple management and the Board use all efforts in making every visit of a devotee, satisfactory and soul string, due to which the temple would become more famous thereby. 8. The writ petition is retrogressive, and with ulterior motive to sabotage a righteous project, intended to benefit the public at large as well as the temple, duly intended to protect the temple interest also. It is submitted that none of the grounds urged in the writ petition are sustainable so as to secure the relief claimed for. The Ext.P2 has been issued by the 3[rd] respondent with all bonafides to achieve the noble objects as stated above. The 3[rd] respondent has every right and authority under the HR & CE Act to give guidance and guidelines, suggestions etc. to the Trustee Boards/Trustees of all the control institutions under it, in order to secure a noble cause to be fulfilled. But no penal consequences will follow against any temples if they choose not to comply with the suggestions given in Ext.P2. It is for the each temples to decide whether they would like to co-operate with the Philanthropic cause mentioned in Ext.P2. The 3[rd] respondent, as per Ext.P2 only granted approval to the temples to expend Rs.15,000/- for the cause mentioned in Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is perfectly legal.” 9 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 5. On 12.06.2023, the 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 07.06.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(h) documents. 6. The 5[th] respondent hereditary trustee has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.07.2023. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that counter affidavit read thus; “4. As regards the establishment of the dialysis centre is concerned it is respectfully submitted that initially there was a charitable hospital namely, Dharmasupathri established in the year, 1987 providing free medical aid and consultation with free medicines to the needy persons. Subsequently, there was discussion and I have also suggested to upgrade the same to a better one. Accordingly, it was decided to start a dialysis centre. For establishing the dialysis unit, Sri.Sathyasai Trust has offered technical support free of cost for running the same and a separate fund was established through a charitable Trust for getting exemption under Section 80G of the Income tax Act. The Trust was formed on 05.08.2022 as could be seen from Exts.R3(e) to (g) produced by the Executive Officer along with his counter affidavit. The Trust by name Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Temple Charitable Trust was formed by including the Executive Officer, myself as Hereditary Trustee, Temple Tantric, Temple Manager, Temple pharmacist, Temple Asst Engineer and Temple Medical Officer, as ex-officio members. 5. As regards Ext.P2 is concerned it was a communication sent by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to the heads 10 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 of the Institutions coming under him for sanctioning of Rs.15,000/- in connection with an inaugural supplement intended to be published by the Devaswom pertains to the inauguration of the Charitable hospital and dialysis centre. But the same was not issued or published and no monetary or other contribution were received by the temple from any of the temples under the Board pursuant to Ext.P2 communication issued by the Commissioner.” 7. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking an order directing respondents 4 and 5 to produce the documents relating to the decision taken to construct Super Specialty Hospital and Dialysis Centre in Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom, collection of money for the construction, appointment of staff, monthly expense, etc. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking an order directing respondents 4 and 5 not to impart free treatment to any person in the dialysis centre of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom and to collect amount from the patients, as in the case of private hospitals. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking an order to implead the additional respondents 6 and 7 in the party array. In that interlocutory application, the 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.10.2023, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) and R5(b) documents. In I.A.No.3 of 2023, this Court is yet to pass any orders. 11 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, we deem it appropriate to close that interlocutory application leaving open the contentions raised by the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer and also the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom Trust. 9. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. [see: **Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others** - **2018 (1) KHC 536]** 10. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust 12 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other 13 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) ## 11. 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, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where 14 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 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 or 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. 12. 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]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further noticed that 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 is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional 15 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 13. Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Temple is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board. The 4[th] respondent is the Executive Officer and the 5[th] respondent is the Devaswom Trust represented by the hereditary trustee. As held in the decisions referred to supra, it is the duty of the trustees to be faithful to the Devaswom and manage, protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the Devaswom, with reasonable diligence. The Malabar Devaswom Board and its officials are duty bound to exercise their supervisory control in order to ensure that the interests and properties of the Devaswom are protected and safeguarded by its trustees and the employees of the Devaswom. Any act of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly by the Board and its officials. 14. In the instant case, the first relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to conduct again the inauguration of the dialysis centre and the Super Specialty Hospital of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom on 16.05.2023 or any other date. As already noticed in the order dated 16.05.2023, the 16 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 inauguration of the dialysis centre was already over, before this writ petition was taken up for consideration. Therefore, this Court considered the relief sought for in this writ petition against collection of any money from any Devaswom or temples coming under the Malabar Devaswom Board, for publishing the souvenir or any publication in connection with the inauguration of the dialysis centre of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom. By the order dated 16.05.2023, this Court granted stay of operation of Ext.P2 communication dated 02.05.2023 of the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner, addressed to the Executive Officer/Chairman/ Managing Trustee of controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board whereby all such institutions are authorized to spend an amount of Rs.15,000/- each for releasing advertisement in the supplement to be published in connection with the inauguration of the free dialysis centre. The interim order dated 16.05.2023 is still in force. 15. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner is that the proposal of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom for starting a charitable hospital and dialysis centre was approved by order dated 17.01.2022 for a sum of Rs.4,83,00,000/- to extend free medical treatment and dialysis, by 17 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 utilizing the Corporate Social Responsibility Fund from the companies and donations from individuals and other establishments. The temples under Malabar Devaswom Board had the approved budget sanction under the head advertisement. If advertisements of the temples are given in the supplement to be published in connection with inauguration of the dialysis centre, it will be beneficial to Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom, which is striving hard to make the charitable project successful. Hence Ext.P2 communication was issued to enable the temples to expend funds for releasing such advertisements. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent that the Commissioner has every right and authority under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to give guidance/guidelines, etc., to the trustees/Board of Trustees of the Devaswoms, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board to expend Devaswom funds for releasing such advertisements, in order to raise funds for the free dialysis centre of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom, no statutory provisions which enables the Commissioner or the Malabar Devaswom Board to issue a communication with such a request could be pointed out either by the learned Standing Counsel for 18 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 Malabar Devaswom Board or by the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Viewed in the light of the statutory provisions contained in the aforesaid Act and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, we find no reason to sustain the demand made in Ext.P2 communication dated 02.05.2023 of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and therefore, the interim order granted on 16.05.2023 is made absolute. 16. From the stand taken by the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer in the counter affidavit dated 07.06.2023, we notice that an amount of Rs.14,91,212/- has already been spent in connection with the inaugural ceremony of the dialysis centre held on 16.05.2023. The formation of the 5[th] respondent Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Temple Charitable Trust for the purpose of conducting the free dialysis centre and hospital is also pointed out in the said counter affidavit. We do not propose to consider the legality or otherwise of the formation of such a trust or utilization of any Devaswom fund in connection with the activities of free dialysis centre and hospital, in this proceedings, considering the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition. The contentions raised by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 on the above aspect are left open to be raised in appropriate proceedings at the appropriate 19 ## W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 stage. The legality or otherwise of the expenditure in connection with the inauguration of the free dialysis centre on 16.05.2023 shall also be decided by the appropriate authority, at the time of statutory audit of the accounts of Sree Kadampuzha Bhagavathi Devaswom. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN 20 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF W.P.(C) 15950/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ANI ONLINE NEWS PORTAL DATED 29/01/2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AND APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEARING NO. J6/2518/2023/M.D.B DATED 02/05/2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3(A) AND TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOARDING (B) AND COPY OF THE INVITATION NOTICE ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DATED 01-02-2023 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMME BROCHURE PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE INAUGURATION OF THE CHARITABLE HOSPITAL AND DIALYSIS CENTRE ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER, STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE MEETING DATED 28-04-2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-06-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 05-07-2022 OF THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TEMPLE EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-09-2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ``` 21 W.P.(C)No.15950 of 2023 ``` EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DIALYSIS UNIT ``` ``` EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BEARING A3- 951/2012/MDB DATED 17-8-2013, EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NO.A3- 552/2022/MDB(K.DIS) DATED 25-6-2022. EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A26/2006 DATED 03-03-2006 ISSUED BY THE SOUTH DIVISION AUDIT INSPECTOR OF THE HR AND CE DEPARTMENT TO THE APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENT AS NONHEREDITARY TRUSTEES ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION DATED 20-11-1987 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, CALICUT IN OA NO.4/87. EXHIBIT R4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3 552/2022/MDB/KDIS DATED 25-06-2022 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. EXHIBIT R4(L). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-951/2012/MDB DATED 17-08-2013 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. EXHIBIT R4(M) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-1102/03(D.DIS) DATED 01-11-2003 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R4(N). TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-02-2011 IN O.S. NO. 74 OF 2005 OF SUB-COURT, TIRUR. ```