P.K. Satheesan v. Secretary to Government, Department of Devaswom, Government of Kerala; Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board; Assistant Commissioner HR & CE Department; Sri K. Suresh

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/25TH KARTHIKA,1945 ``` **==> picture [152 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` P.K.SATHEESAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.SRI.KRISHNA VARMA RAJA, MANAGING TRUSTEE, MALAMAKKAVU AYYAPPA KSHETRAM, RESIDING AT PADINJAREPPATTU HOUSE, OTHALUR, TRITHALA, PALAKKAD ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR ``` ``` SRI.ARUNBABY STEPHEN SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.S.PARVATHI SRI.G.RENJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001`** - **`2 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673006`** - **`3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER H R & C E DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, PIN 676101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT`** ``` 4SRI.K.SURESH, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAMBIAR, RHYTHAM HOUSE, KUNDUKANDATHIL VEEDU, MALAMAKKAVU PO, MALAMAKKAVU AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, ``` 2 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 ``` PIN-679553, PALAKKAD DISTRICT ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MDB SRI.MOHAN C.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MDB ``` ``` SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 28.04.2008 of the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ext.P7 order dated 03.09.2015 of the 1[st] respondent Government of Kerala. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that Ext.P7 order issued by the 1[st] respondent is violative of Articles 14, 21, 24 and 25 of the Constitution of India; and a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from removing the petitioner from the post of Managing Trustee of Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple, irrespective of the issuance of Exts.P1 and P7 orders. 2. On 08.01.2016, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1[st] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for the 2[nd] respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 3 and 4. This Court granted an interim order staying the operation of Exts.P1 and P7 orders for a period of two months. The said interim order, which was extended by three months on 08.03.2016, was extended until further orders on 07.06.2016. 4 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 3. On 07.11.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge, the matter was directed to be listed before the Devaswom Bench. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent. 5. Ext.P7 order dated 03.09.2015 of the 1[st] respondent State is one issued in a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951. Ext.P1 order dated 28.04.2008 of the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby the Area Committee was allowed to appoint non-hereditary trustees and an Executive Officer for the administration of Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple was under challenge in O.S.No.360 of 2009 filed by the petitioner and another before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. By Ext.P4 order dated 20.07.2013, the Sub Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable, as the remedy open to the petitioner is to file a petition under Section 39(4) of the Act, subject to the law of limitation. The petitioner and another filed R.F.A.No.742 of 2013 before this Court against 5 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 Ext.P4 order, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. As per the said judgment, if the appellants file an application before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, within one month, for conversion of the suit into a revision petition before the Government under Section 99(1) of the Act, the Sub Court shall allow that application. The appellants were directed to file an affidavit along with that petition that the relief in respect of the appointment of the Executive Officer is not pressed. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1[st] respondent State of Kerala, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P7 order dated 03.09.2015. The reasoning of the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P7 order reads thus; “The principal contentions of the Revision Petitioner are that the appointment of the Executive Officer was made as per the impugned Order dated 28.04.2008 without issuing prior notice to the Hereditary Trustee This allegation is absolutely false. That the hereditary Trustee was not issued a notice regarding the appointment of an Executive Officer is a sheer lame excuse. The impugned Order dated 28.04.2008 shows that the Hereditary Trustee and the temple management were given sufficient opportunity to represent their case. Firstly, when the Assistant Commissioner visited the temple after proper notice to the parties on 14.01.2008 the hereditary Trustee was present and he sought adjournment. However, when the Assistant Commissioner visited the temple subsequently on two separate days, that is on 25.01.2008 and 25.02.2008 after due notice under URP the Hereditary Trustee was absent and the Manager who was present was highly evasive and he did not produce the records for verification. This attitude of the temple management including the 6 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 Hereditary Trustees is nothing but willful refusal to co-operate with the authorities in their bona fide attempt to ensure that there is a proper system of administration at the temple. This is a public temple and therefore why they should refuse to co-operate with the Department/MDB to put in place a proper administration does not stand to reason. It is clear that the Trustee was given adequate opportunity to submit his case before the authorities. In fact, the act of the Hereditary Trustee not being present at the temple when the Assistant Commissioner visited the temple for enquiry is a deliberate Act of refusal to cooperate with the Department. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention. Moreover, there is an inordinate delay in filing this revision petition before the Government for the condonation of which no reasonable ground is submitted by the petitioner except that the delay was due to the proceedings initiated by him before the High Court and Sub-Court. What exactly prevented him from filing the Revision is not explained in reasonable and logical terms.” 6. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union** **[(1971) 1 All ER 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120]** it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to the denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 7. In **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court held that public orders publicly made, in the exercise of a statutory 7 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 8. Following the principle laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court has reiterated in **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner** **[(1978) 1 SCC 405]** that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 9. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, Ext.P7 order passed by the 1[st] respondent State, which is one issued without adverting to the 8 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 revision petition, cannot be sustained in law. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P7 order dated 03.09.2015 of the 1[st] respondent on the aforesaid ground and by directing the said respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 revision petition, with notice to the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. It would be open to the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent to submit written submissions before the 1[st] respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd 9 W.P(C)No.760 of 2016 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 760/2016`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** ## **`EXHIBIT P1`** ``` EXHIBIT P2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 01.10.2009 IN WPC.NO.14303 OF 2008 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.360 OF 2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.20.07.2013 IN OS.NO.360 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 19.09.2014 IN RFA NO.742/2013 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 24.10.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.5591/2015/RD DT. 03.09.2015 ISSUED BY R1 ```