R. Satheeshchandranaged 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C)NO.25694 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` R.SATHEESHCHANDRANAGED, 55 YEARS, S/O K.K. RAVEENDRA NATHAN NAIR, MAYA NIVAS, KAVUMBAGAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, KAVUMBHAGOM,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689102 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695003`** - **`2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003`** - **`3 DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, PENSION & SERVICE GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL CELL, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003`** - **`4 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVALLA GROUP, THIRUVALLA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101`** ## **`BY ADV SANTHOSH KUMAR G.`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` ADV. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner who is a devotee of Sree Vallabha Temple, Thiruvalla, which is a temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023 of the 4[th] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Thiruvalla Group, whereby the petitioner is informed that his name is excluded from the list of members in the registered mandalam for constituting the Temple Advisory Committee of Thiruvalla Devaswom, based on order No.R.O.C.329/21/MS2 dated 20.03.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom commissioner. Ext.P3 communication reads thus; “ തിരുവ്ᩤ ദേവസ്വം ഉപദേശക സ്മിതി രൂപീകരണം നിയമപരമായ അംഗതവ ലി᪚➚ിൽ നിന്ും താ്ᨮളെ സ്ൂചന ന്ᩘർ പ്പകാരം .” ഒഴിവാ്ᨪിയി്ᨾു്ᩦതാകയാൽ ആ വിവരം അറിയി്ᨪുന്ു The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner to consider Ext.P4 representation dated 05.04.2023, forthwith. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by non-consideration of Ext.P4 3 ## W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 representation dated 05.04.2023 made before the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, against the exclusion of his name from the list of members in the registered mandalam for the formation of Temple Advisory Committee of Thiruvalla Devaswom. The petitioner is the former Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vallabha Temple during the year 2012-2013. Against Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 appeal before the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner and thereafter approached this Court in this writ petition seeking the aforesaid reilefs. 3. On 09.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instruction. 4. On 21.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel sought time to make available for the perusal of this Court, the files relating to the order dated 20.03.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, referred to in Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023 of the 4[th] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. 5. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for 4 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the order dated 20.03.2022 of the Devaswom Commissioner, which is referred to in Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. Page No.215 of that file contains report No.2466 dated 13.12.2022 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner-in-charge, to the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that it was after taking note of the said report of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner that the Devaswom Commissioner issued the order dated 20.03.2022, based on which the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents. 7. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per subsection (3) of Section 1 of the 5 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District. 8. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Travancore Devaswom. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in Board. As per Section 3, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 9. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the 6 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 10. Section 31A of the Act deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per subsection (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name ‘Temple Advisory Committee’ (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board, with has been ap- proved by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No.153 of 2009. 7 ## W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 11. Clause (2) of the Rules deals with objectives of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per Clause (2) of the Rules, one - of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formu late schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, - submit the same before the Board and execute it with the ap proval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department. 12. Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership. Clause (3) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the membership in ‘registered mandalam’ is mainly for the devotees who are residing - within a distance of 5kms from the temple, who are regular wor shipers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of the Rules deal with class of persons who are entitled to get membership. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding exclusion of his name from the list of member in the registered mandalam for electing the member of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vallabha Devaswom. By Ext.P3 communication dated 8 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 28.03.2023 of the 4[th] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioner is informed that his name is excluded from the list of members in the registered mandalam, based on the order dated 20.03.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is not issued with a copy of the order dated 20.03.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent. The reason for the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of members in the registered mandalam is not discernible from Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023 issued by the 4[th] respondent. 14. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All. E.R. 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 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. 15. In **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.** **Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court has held that, public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory 9 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 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 actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Following the principle laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji’s case (supra)** , 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, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 16. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in **Chairman and Managing** ## **Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4** **SCC 364]** held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals 10 ## W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi - judicial performance. 17. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in **Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 605]** that, undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 11 ## W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ## 18. In **B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport** **Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 515]** the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments on the subject has reiterated that, the rule of reason is anti-thesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. If a statutory or public authority/functionary does not record the reasons, its decision would be rendered arbitrary, unfair, unjust and violating Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of such authority/functionary to give reasons and to pass a speaking order that excludes arbitrariness in action. Referring to the facts of that case, the Apex Court noticed that, there is no consideration of the objections except mentioning the arguments of the rival parties and that objections both factual and legal have not been considered much less reasons assigned to overrule them. 19. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the procedure adopted by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, while excluding the name of the petitioner from the list of members in the registered mandalam for electing the members of the Temple 12 ## W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 Advisory Committee of Thiruvalla Devaswom is per se arbitrary and illegal and the procedure adopted by the 2[nd] respondent is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. In case the report dated 13.12.2022 of the 4[th] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner was adverse to the petitioner, before taking a decision based on that report, the 2[nd] respondent ought to have furnished a copy of the same to the petitioner, so as to enable him to offer a proper explanation. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P3 communication dated 28.03.2023 of the 4[th] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and also the order dated 20.03.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner referred to therein and by directing the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the question of inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of members in the registered mandalam for electing the members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Thiruvalla Devaswom, after furnishing the petitioner a copy of the report dated 13.12.2022 of the 4[th] respondent and an opportunity to submit written submission raising appropriate legal and factual contentions. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2[nd] respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, 13 W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be afforded with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent shall be a ‘reasoned order’, adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner. Since the election to the new Temple Advisory Committee of Thiruvalla Devaswom is already over, the decision taken by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, in terms of the directions in this judgment will have no effect on the existing Temple Advisory Committee. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN 14 ## W.P.(C)No.25694 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25694/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit -P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE WITHOUT LIST DATED 08.11.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, THIRUVALLA DEVASWOM ``` ``` Exhibit -P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS ``` ``` Exhibit -P3 THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. 884 DATED 28.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ``` ``` Exhibit -P4 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT ENCLOSURES DATED 05.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit -P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2023 IN WPC NO. 42734/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ```