Radha Warassiar v. Cochin Devaswom Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 2206 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN DBP NO.1 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN DBP:** **RADHA WARASSIAR, AGED 80 YEARS W/O.LATE NARAYAN WARRIER, PISHARIKOVIL WARRIAM, EROD WEST, THRIPUNITHURA-682 306.** **BY ADVS.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN NIDHI BALACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN DBP:** **M.G.JAGADEESH, NAME OF FATHER, AGE AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT DEVASWAM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA-680 001.** **R BY SRI K.P.SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL , COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 80 years, has filed this Contempt Case (C) invoking the provisions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent herein, who is the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, Thripunithura, for wilful disobedience of the writ issued by this Court in Annexure A1 order dated 11.02.2019 in DBP No.1 of 2019. 2. On 04.01.2022, when this contempt case came up for consideration, this Court noticed that as per paragraphs 4 and 5 of Annexure A1 order, the grievance projected by the petitioner in DBP No.1 of 2019 was regarding nondisbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional hands during the festival of the year 2018. However, after Anneuxre A1 judgment, the petitioner submitted Annexure A2 representation dated 28.03.2019, in which her grievance was as to non-disbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional -3- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 hands during the festival of the year 2019. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the said order read thus; “2. After Annexure A1 judgment, the petitioner submitted Annexure A2 representation dated 28.03.2019, in which her grievance was as to nondisbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional hands during the festival of the year 2019. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, on instructions, would submit that after Annexure A1 order in DBP No.1 of 2019, the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.02.2019, before the respondent Assistant Commissioner of Devaswom and that petition was allowed by the order dated 15.03.2019 ordering disbursement of an amount of Rs.1,400/-. However, the petitioner did not accept that amount. It is thereafter that she has filed Annexure A2 complaint dated 28.03.2019. 4. 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 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 -4- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 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 ‘fences 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. 5. 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. That was a case wherein the alleged encroachment of Temple property was raised in a complaint filed by a devotee. The Division Bench 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 Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Advisory -5- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board shall make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the order dated 15.03.2019.” 3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.01.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the order dated 15.03.2019. 4. On 11.02.2022, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to this date. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board representing the respondent. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in this contempt case is as to whether the petitioner has made out a case to initiate proceedings against the respondent, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for wilful disobedience of Annexure A1 order of this Court dated 11.02.2019. -6- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the relevant files, we find that the scope of the order in DBP No.1 of 2019 is confined to the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the petitioner for deploying additional hands during the temple festival of the year 2018. Though the Board sanctioned certain amount by considering the representation made by the petitioner, pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure A1 order in DBP No.1 of 2019, the petitioner is yet to receive that amount. In Annexure A2 representation dated 28.03.2019, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding non-disbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional hands during the temple festival of the year 2019. The said grievance of the petitioner is beyond the scope of the direction contained in Annexure A1 order of this Court dated 11.02.2019 in DBP No.1 of 2019. In such circumstances, we find no reason to proceed with this Contempt Case and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Registry shall return the files produced in terms of the -7- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 order of this Court dated 04.01.2022, to the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** AV/15/02 -8- Cont.Case(C)No.2206 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2206/2021** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN DBP NO.1/2019(CDB REPORT NO.1/19). Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.03.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.**