Sathyan K. and Rudran Namboothiri P.N. v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others

1 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.42063 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1 SATHYAN K., AGED 49 YEARS, KIZCHERY HOUSE, P.O. PURANATTUKARA, ADAT, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680551 ``` ``` 2 RUDRAN NAMBOOTHIRI P.N., AGED 67 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PUTHUKKATTU MANA, PURANATTUKARA P.O., ADAT , THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680551 ``` ``` BY ADVS. VISHNU DAS SRUTHI DAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,`**| |---|---| ||**`REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS,`**| ||**`SWARAJ ROAD WEST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001`**| |**`2`**|**`ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KODUNGALLOOR,`**| ||**`THRISSUR, PIN - 680664`**| |**`3`**|**`DEVASWOM OFFICER,`**| ||**`POONKUNNAM DEVASWOM OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, POONKUNNAM DEVASWOM,`**| ||**`KEEZHEDAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 686506`**| |**`4`**|**`P.KERALADAS MENON,`**| ||**`PRESIDENT OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU`**| ||**`TEMPLE, ABHINITH VIHAR, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551`**| |**`5`**|**`MANOJ KUMAR P.,`**| ||**`VICE PRESIDENT OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA`**| ||**`VISHNU TEMPLE, KURUVAYIL VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN -`**| ||**`680551`**| 2 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 - **`6 HARISH V. G., SECRETARY OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, VELLIYATH VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551`** - **`7 ADDL.R7: M. MOHANDAS, JOINT SECRETARY OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, KIZAKOOTU VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551`** - **`8 ADDL.R8:VISHNU C., TREASURER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, CHEERA KUDI VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551`** - **`9 ADDL.R9: SURENDRAN K.V., AUDITOR OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, PURANATTUKARA VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551`** - **`10 ADDL.R10: MURALIDHARAN A., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, ATTOR VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN-680551`** - **`11 ADDL.R11:A. SANTHOSH KUMAR, MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, ATTOR VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551.`** - **`12 ADDL.R12:AJAYKUMAR, MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, KUNNATHUPARGODATH, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551.`** - **`13 ADDL.R13:JAYAN P.B., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, PATHIYATH VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551.`** - **`14 ADDL.R14:KOMALAVALLY K.S., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, PANDARATHIL VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551.`** - **`15 ADDL.R15:BINDU C.M., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, CHANGARATH VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN – 680551.`** - **`16 ADDL.R16: MANOJ P.M., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, PAVILLA VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551.`** - **`17 ADDL.R17:SUDHAKARAN C., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, EMOTH VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551.`** - **`18 ADDL.R18:KARTHIK V., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, CHANGARANGATH VEEDU , PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551.`** 3 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 - **`19 ADDL.R19: MANOJ K.,`** ``` MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, KIZAKEKOOTU VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN -680 551.]*** CORRECTED AS MANOJ K.S, MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, KARUMAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR - 680 551. (CORRECTED AS PER VIDE ORDER DATED 27/03/23 IN IA 4/23). ``` - **`20 ADDL.R20:BIJU V.V.,`** - **`MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, VADAKKUMURI VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551.`** - **`21 ADDL.R21:A.N.PRAVEEN, (MELSHANTHI) EXOFFICIO MEMBER TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR , PIN - 680551 (ADDL.R7 TO 21 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03-01-2023 IN IA 1/2023.)`** - **`22 ADDL.R22: BABU K.U., MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, KURUPAM VALAPIL VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR - 680 551.`** - **`23 ADDL.R23: SUKUMARAN POTHUVAL T.,`** - **`MEMBER OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, SREYAS VEEDU, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR - 680 551. (ARE IMPLEADED AS PER VIDE ORDER DATED 27/03/23 IN IA 3/23. )`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` - **`K.P. SUDHEER ADVOCATE VISHNU DAS`** ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SRI K.P. SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL- COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are devotees of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 10.11.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby approval was granted to the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, with respondents 4 to 6 and additional respondents 7 to 21 as members, by way of nomination. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to convene a fresh general body meeting of the devotees of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple and constitute a proper Temple Advisory Committee as per Ext.P1 Rules (Bye-law). 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, though the general body of the registered devotees was convened on 07.10.2022 for the purpose of electing new members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, the meeting was disbursed, since there was no consensus among the members. Later, the Temple Advisory Committee was 5 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 constituted by way of nomination, which was granted approval by Ext.P5 order dated 10.11.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board. 3. On 23.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to file an application to implead the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, other than the office bearers, who are already in the party array as respondents 4 to 6. 4. By the order dated 03.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, the members of the Temple Advisory Committee were impleaded as additional respondents 7 to 21. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 to 6 and also additional respondents 7 to 21. The learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit. 5. On 13.10.2023, the 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.10.2023, producing therewith Exts.R1(b) to R1(g) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. It is submitted that in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the petitioners allege that the 1[st] petitioner has been a member of the Temple Advisory Committee several times 6 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 and was an active participant in the developmental activities of the temple. Ext.P4 representation would show that the 2[nd] petitioner was the president of the Temple Advisory Committee. It is submitted that by order on A5. 4592/2016 dated 23.04.2016, the Special Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board approved the Temple Advisory Committee of the temple in question during 2016 and the 2[nd] petitioner herein was the President and the 1[st] petitioner was a member in the said Temple Advisory Committee. In this regard, true copy of the order on A5. 4592/2016 dated 23.04.2016 K.U.S-129 issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(b). As requested by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was constituted pursuant to Ext.R1(b) order dated 23.04.2016, the term of the committee was extended for a further period of three months from 23.04.2018. In this regard, true copy of order No. A5. 4592/16 dated 02.12.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(c). Even though the said committee again requested to extend the term, by order No.A5.4592/16 dated 03.06.2019, the 1[st] respondent rejected said request. In this regard, true copy of order No. A5.4592/16 dated 03.06.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1 (d). Yet again, the committee requested for extension of their term and by order dated 03.12.2019, the 1[st] respondent rejected the said request and directed the Devaswom Officer to comply with Ext.R1(d) order dated 03.06.2019. In this regard, true copy of order No. A5. 4592/16 dated 03.12.2019 issued by 7 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 the 1[st] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(e). 4. It is submitted that Ext.P7 order dated 27.08.2016 would show that the 3[rd] respondent submitted a report dated 07.06.2016 about the cutting of teak trees standing in the property of the Devaswom and also the execution of a document in favour of the Temple Advisory Committee with respect to a property having an extent of 4 cents in Re Survey No.136/2 of Puranattukara Village. Ext.P8 order would show that necessary directions were issued to the Temple Advisory Committee to transfer the property in the name of the Devaswom and to include the same in the thanathu register maintained by the Devaswom. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is alleged that in Ext.P5 order persons responsible with respect to the execution of the document and the cutting of teak trees were included in Ext.P5 order. But, the petitioners have not furnished the details of those persons nor pleaded such crucial facts in the writ petition. 5. It is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the participation of 105 persons in the general body convened on 07.10.2022 for constituting the Temple Advisory Committee for the temple in question. It is also not in dispute that 53 members were nominated in the general body. So much so, there was no consensus and in terms of the relevant clauses in Ext.P1 by law, the Devaswom Officer reported the same to the 1[st] respondent. The persons included in Ext.P5 order were nominated from the aforesaid 53 persons. The allegation that the president informed that 8 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 only the name suggested by the local committee shall be taken for consideration for the new list is absolutely incorrect. The allegation in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the persons included in Ext.P5 are favoured persons to a major political party is incorrect and such allegations are stoutly denied. The allegation that the 3[rd] respondent who controlled the meeting sided with political agenda and disbursed the meeting without hearing the majority voice of the devotees is absolutely incorrect. 6. It is submitted that the 1[st] petitioner herein submitted a petition to the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur Group (not the 2[nd] respondent wrongly shown as Assistant Commissioner, Kodungallur) not to give membership to those persons who were involved in the execution of the document in favour of the Temple Advisory Committee and also involved in the cutting of teak trees. In fact, the 1[st] respondent has already issued orders to initiate appropriate steps against those persons who were involved in the aforementioned execution of document and also cutting of trees from the Devaswom land. Based on the report, the 1[st] respondent has issued an order not to give membership to those persons involved in the aforementioned incidents. In this regard, true copy of order No.A5. 12533/19 dated 20.01.2021 issued by the 1[st] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(f). While so, request was submitted by a member of the previous Temple Advisory Committee by name Haridasan C. to the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur Group and who in turn forwarded the same to the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent issued 9 ## W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 order on A5.12533/2019 dated 06.09.2022, affirming Ext.R1 (f) order. In this regard, true copy of Order on A5. 12533/2019, dated 06.09.2022 issued by the Devaswom Commissioner, CDB is produced here with and marked as Ext.R1 (g).” 6. On 13.10.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court noticed that as evident from Ext.R1(f) order dated 20.01.2021 of the 1[st] respondent Board, the document in respect of 4 cents of land in Re.Sy.No.136/2 of Puranattukara Village, has been executed in the name of the Temple Advisory Committee, instead of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to furnish the name and address of the person in whose favour the document has been executed. 7. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit dated 03.11.2023. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that affidavit read thus; “3. It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. Ext.P5 is the order of appointment of the new temple advisory committee which is not in accordance with the bye-law of the Cochin Devaswom Board. As stated in the writ petition, clause-7 states that the meeting of the elected members of the Temple Advisory Committee should be convened on the 10 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 same day and office bearers should be elected from that meeting. However, in this scenario there were disputes with regard to the nominated candidates and list of the present members were published on 10.11.2022 which is few days after the general body meeting. Moreover, while Ext.P5 was under challenge in this writ petition, the respondents published Ext.R1(a) dated 18.01.2023, which is an order modifying the names of the members in the present list. The Ext.R1(a) itself is illegal as no general body meeting was conducted for approving and including additional members to the list. 4. It is true with regard to Ext.R1(b) to Ext.R1(e), the then Temple Advisory Committee including the petitioners were actively involved in the development of the temple, hence they opted for continuing with the committee and made requests as stated in the paragraph no.3 and they had bona fide intention for the wellbeing of the temple. Unfortunately, the representation was rejected which eventually lead to this procedure for election of members which is in question. It is evident that, although meeting was convened, members of the Temple Advisory Committee were not elected. Detailed procedure for election of the members of the Temple Advisory Committee is provided in Clause (3) of Ext.P1 bye-law. It is the obligation to follow the said procedure and to constitute the Temple Advisory Committee. 5. It is stated in paragraph no.4 that necessary directions were taken against the wrongdoer who is the 6[th] respondent in the writ petition, however, the criminal misconduct is not extinguished from the part of the 6[th] respondent and a 11 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 person having such criminal record is not fit for the position of a member of the temple advisory committee. The additional 12[th] respondent was also in the said misconduct. The averments in Paragraph no.6 would show that the respondent has admitted that criminal misconduct by the respondent and the fact that necessary proceedings is initiated against him is baseless as the property is not transferred to the name of the Devaswom. 6. The averments in paragraph no.5 are false as the list should have been published on the same day and list from the nominated members were selected with their own discretion. The other members were not given opportunity to be heard nor were they given a chance to oppose the list selected. The present members of the Temple Advisory Committee are actively involved in politics, the decision of this Hon'ble High Court In **Anantha Narayanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2023:KER:9966]** held that a person actively involved in politics, whether or not holding an official post, is not eligible to be appointed as a nonhereditary trustee in temples under the concerned Devaswom Board. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3. Despite service of notice, none appears for the party respondents. 9. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 12 ## W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 order dated 10.11.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby the Temple Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, which has been constituted by way of nomination, has been granted approval. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the procedure adopted by the 1[st] respondent Board while constituting the Temple Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, by Ext.P5 order dated 10.11.2022 is _per se_ arbitrary and illegal. Instead of electing the members of the committee in the manner provided in Ext.P1 Rules (Bye-laws), respondents 1 to 3 opted for constitution of the committee by way of nomination, which is legally impermissible. 11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would point out the specific stand taken by the Board in the counter affidavit dated 10.11.2023 that though 105 members of the registered mandalam participated in the general body convened on 07.10.2022, there was no consensus in that meeting and therefore, the procedure open to the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner is to forward a report to that effect before the 1[st] respondent Board, along with the list of members of the registered mandalam who can be 13 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 included in the Temple Advisory Committee by way of nomination. 12. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that in the meeting of the registered mandalam, which was convened on 07.10.2022 for electing the members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, which was attended by 105 members, there was no consensus and in such circumstances, the procedure adopted by the 1[st] respondent Board in constituting a Temple Advisory Committee by way of nomination cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, warranting an interference on Ext.P5 order dated 10.11.2022. 13. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the members of the Temple Advisory Committee are actively involved in politics and as such they are disqualified from being elected as the members of that committee. Since the constitution of the Temple Advisory Committee was by way of nomination, the members of the registered mandalam are denied an opportunity to point out the disqualifications of the members of the new Temple Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple. In support of that contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of this Court in 14 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 **Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala [ILR 2022 (4) Kerala 199]** and the decision in **Anantha Narayanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2023:KER:9966]** . 14. In **Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534]** the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 15. In **M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat** **[(1998) 4 SCC 387]** the Apex Court was dealing with a case 15 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3 and 4". The Apex Court held that, it is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. 16 ## W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. On the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings. 16. In **Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate 17 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. 17. When the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P5 order dated 10.11.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board is also on the ground of disqualification of the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, in terms of the eligibility and disqualification clauses in Ext.P1 Rules (Bye-laws), in view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the writ petition should contain specific allegations with supporting materials against respondents 4 to 6 and also against additional respondents 7 to 17, who are the office bearers and members of 18 ## W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 that committee. Instead of amending the writ petition, by incorporating additional statement of facts along with supporting materials, the petitioners cannot seek a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 10.11.2022 on that ground or seek a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to convene a fresh general body meeting for electing a new Temple Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, as sought for in this writ petition. 18. Regarding the land having an extent of 4 cents in Re.Sy.No. 136/2 of Puranattukara Village, referred to in the order of this Court dated 13.10.2023, which is covered by Document No.4083 of 1995 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thrissur, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that Advisory Committee of Puranattukara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, represented by its President, Shankara Narayanan. The Board has already issued an order, whereby the Temple Advisory Committee is require to register the land in favour of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The above stand taken by the Cochin Devaswom Board is recorded. 19 ## W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 In the above circumstances, the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P5 order fails and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN 20 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42063/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE BY-LAW OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD FOR THE FORMULATION OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATED NIL ``` - **`EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL BODY PUBLISHED BY THE DEVASWOM DATED 07.10.2022`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS WHO WERE SELECTED FROM THE GENERAL BODY MEETING CONDUCTED BY THE PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE MANAGED BY POONKUNNAM DEVASWOM UNDER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED NIL`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF PURANATTUKARA MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SPECIAL COMMISSIONER DATED 07.11.2022`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SHOWING THE APPOINTMENT OF TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NUMBERED A5.11035/2022 DATED 10.11.2022`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE CONSISTING OF THE PRESENT TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THEIR STATUS DATED NIL`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THE INVOLVEMENT OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS IN CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT IN ORDER ON R 6541/2016 DATED 27.08.2016`** ``` EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON R 6451/2016 DATED 17.12.2016 ``` 21 W.P.(C)No.42063 of 2022 ## **`EXHIBIT P9`** ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE WP(C) NO. 36780/2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 17.11.2022 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT R1 ( A ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 11035/2022 DATED 18.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R 1 ( B ) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON A5.4592/2016 DATED 23/04/2016- K.U.S-129 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R 1 ( C ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 4592/16 DATED 02/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R 1 ( D ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 4592/16 DATED 03/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT R 1 ( E ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 4592/16 DATED 03/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R 1 ( F ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 12533/19 DATED 20/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R 1 ( G ) COPY OF ORDER ON A5. 12533/2019, DATED 06/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, CDB. ```