Ranjith P. and Jayakumar K.S. v. State of Kerala and Malabar 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 THURSDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 21ST MAGHA, 1943** ## **W.P.(C)NO.5317 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 RANJITH P., AGED 38 YEARS, SON OF KARUNAKARAN, KIZHIYAPAT HOUSE, KATTUKULAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -679 514 2 JAYAKUMAR K.S, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF K. T. SREEDHARAN, SURYA JYOTHI, KATTUKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 679 514** **BY ADVS. K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SHRI.G.RENJITH SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.T.H.ARAVIND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPREENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001** **2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER** **W.P.(C)NO.5317 OF 2021** 2 - **3 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 006** - **4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD -678 633** - **5 THE INSPECTOR OF DEVASWOMS, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OTTAPALAM TALUK, OFFICE: PUTHUNALAKKAL BHAGAVATHY TAMPLE, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD 679 503** - **6 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARIYANAMPATTA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, KATTUKULAM P.O., PIN -679 514, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **7 SHRI BHASKARAN NAIR, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE IN CHARGE OF SREE PARIYANAMPATTA BHAVATHY DEVASWOM, THRIKKIDIR MOOPPIL NAIR FAMILY, THRIKKIDIR, PALAKKAD -679 502** - **8 ADDL.R8. P.T.MURALIKRISHNAN S/O. P.T. GOPALAN VYDIAR, PATTISSERYTHODI HOUSE, KALLUVAZHI.P.O, THIRUVAZHIYODE VIA, PIN-679514** - **9 ADDL.R9. SRI.BABU.N. SON OF KRISHNAN NAIR, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, RAGAM CORNER, SREEKRISHNAPURAM.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679513.** - **10 ADDL.R10. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN SON OF KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, SUNDARMAHAL, KATTUKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679514.** - **11 ADDL.R11.SRI.E.JAYACHANDRAN S/O. OF K.P. PADMANABHAN NAIR, KARTHIKA HOUSE, KULAKKAD P.O., CHERPULASSERY(VIA) PIN-679503, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **(ADDL. R8 TO ADDL.R11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5-11-2021 IN IA 5/2021 IN WP(C) 5317/2021)** **W.P.(C)NO.5317 OF 2021** 3 **BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD K.MOHANAKANNAN MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI T.K. VIPIN DAS- SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are devotees of Sree Pariyanampatta Bhagavathy Temple, have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the proposal to appoint a nonhereditary trustee by constituting a Board of Trustees in the Sree Pariyanampatta Bhagavathy Temple, is unauthorised, wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of Section 39(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and also the fundamental rights of the devotees like the petitioners to temple worship guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void and inoperative. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from constituting a Board of Trustees in Sree Pariyanampatta Bhagavathy Temple, consisting mainly of political activists, in violation of the relevant provisions and in a manner violating Articles 25 to 26 of the W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 5 Constitution of India and the executive orders passed by the Government on the subject. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.4 of 2021, seeking an order to amend the writ petition by incorporating additional statement of facts, grounds and reliefs, as stated in that interlocutory application. That application was allowed by the order dated 05.11.2021. By way of that amendment, the petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 26.02.2021 of the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ext.P4 resolution dated 12.03.2021 taken in the first meeting of the Board of Trustees (non-hereditory) of Pookkottukavu Bhagavathy Temple. 3. By the order dated 05.11.2021 in I.A.No.5 of 2021, persons who have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees in the Board of Trustees of Sree Pariyanampatta Bhagavathy Temple, were impleaded as additional respondents 8 to 11. W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 6 4. A statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The 6[th] respondent and also additional respondents 8 to 11 have filed counter affidavits. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 5, Sri.K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent and also Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the additional respondents 8 to 11. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that challenging Ext.P3 order dated 26.02.2021 of the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner, the petitioners propose to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the State, under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 7 ## 7. Section 99 of the Act deals with the power of State Government to call for records and pass orders. As per sub-section (1) of Section 99, the State Government may call for and examine the record of the Board or Commissioner or any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or any Area Committee or of any trustee in respect of any proceeding, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein; and, if, in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the Act, the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations. As per sub-section (2) of Section 99, the State Government may stay the execution of any such W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 8 decision or order, pending the exercise of their powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1[st] respondent State may be directed to take an appropriate decision on the revision to be filed by the petitioners, within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would point out that, on 30.11.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, he has pointed out the decision of this Court in **Kunhirama Variar** **v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 761]** , wherein, in the context of Section 39(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, it was held that, in the matter of appointment of non-hereditary trustees, the statutory provisions envisage hearing of hereditary trustee only. Therefore, the _locus standi_ of the petitioners, who are the devotees Sree Pariyanampatta Bhagavathy Temple to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Act W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 9 for challenging Ext.P3 order dated 26.02.2021 of the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner may be left open. 10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, by recording the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners propose to challenge Ext.P3 order dated 26.02.2021 of the 3[rd] respondent Commissioner by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the 1[st] respondent State under Section 99 of the Act. If any such revision petition is received, in accordance with the statutory requirements, it is for the revisional authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioners and all affected parties, without any delay. Before the revisional authority it would be open to be Malabar Devaswom Board and also the party respondents to raise appropriate legal and factual contentions, including the maintainability of such a revision or even the _locus_ W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 10 _standi_ of the petitioners to file such a revision against Ext.P3 order dated 26.02.2021. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C)No.5317 of 2021 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C)No.5317 of 2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 23-022021 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.** ## **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF NOTICE JB-4804/2020/MDB DATED 28/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** ## **Exhibit P3** **TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.J5/4804/2020/M.D.B. DT. 26.02.2021 BY THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.** ## **Exhibit P4** **TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE TRUSTEE BOARD DT. 12.03.2021.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.**