High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-06-08Disposed of with directions; petitioner to purs...

Shaji K.T v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.13195 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
P.G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date: 2022-06-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: the petitioner to challenge Ext. P23 by filing an appeal before the 3rd respondent under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act, along with an application for interim relief; the 3rd respondent shall treat the memorandum of appeal as timely if filed by 10.06.2022; the 3rd respondent shall consider the interim relief application on 10.06.2022 with notice and pass orders by 17.06.2022; service of copies to relevant temple authorities and associations; the proceedings before the 2nd respondent (Ext.P23) stand disposed of and the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to contentions available to the petitioner before the appropriate authority under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions; petitioner to pursue appeal under Section 45(5) before the 3rd respondent with interim relief, and the 3rd respondent to decide within stipulated time; proceedings before the 2nd respondent are deemed disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shaji K.T

Respondents

Malabar Devaswom Board, Housefed Complex, Eranjipalam, Kozhikode-673 006, represented by its Commissioner
The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Housefed Complex, Eranjipalam, Kozhikode-673 006
The Managing Trustee, Sree Valayanad Bhagavathi Devaswom, Kommeri P.O., Kozhikode-673 007
The Manager/Executive Officer, Sree Valayanad Bhagavathi Devaswom, Kommeri P.O., Kozhikode-673 007

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Mohanakannan
• A.R. Pravitha
• D.S. Thushara
• H. Praveen (Kottarakkara)
• T. Ancy Maya S.
• Kumar Berin Baby

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri R. Lakshmi Narayan (Standing Counsel, Malabar Devaswom Board)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition by Shaji K.T., a devotee of Sree Valayanad Bhagavathi, seeks a mandamus to require the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, to hear the petitioner before finalising proceedings evidenced by Exts. P3 and P4, and to permit the petitioner to adduce evidence (oral and documentary). The petitioner also seeks a mandamus preventing finalisation of Exts. P3 and P4 without hearing and without perusal of the documents mentioned in Ext. P3. The Court discusses whether Ext. P23 (16.04.2022) issued by the Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, violates natural justice and can be challenged under Article 226. It relies on a related judgment in W.P.(C) No.14154/2022 which dealt with a similar challenge to Ext. P23 and highlighted that remedies lie under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act, including an appeal before the State under that sub-section. The judgment also cites Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Narichania to reiterate that writ courts should not grant interim relief where final relief should be sought in an appropriate forum. The petition is disposed of with directions: file an appeal under Section 45(5) before the 3rd respondent with an interim relief application; the 3rd respondent to dispose the interim relief application by a specified date, and service of pleadings/compliance to be completed. The order leaves the petition open to contentions at the appropriate statutory forum.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaMadras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Section 45(1)Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Section 45(5)Sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the ActSection 45(1) of the Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice
Interim relief in writ petitions should not substitute final relief; writ court should refrain where another forum is appropriate (Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner seeks mandamus to ensure hearing before finalising Exts. P3 and P4 and to admit evidence; he contends the order Ext.P23 merits scrutiny for violating natural justice and that he be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to challenge Ext.P23 under the statutory remedy. The relief sought includes staying finalisation until hearing and perusal of documents.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ submissions foreground that a writ petition cannot override statutory remedies; relying on principles from Kalabharati (and related authorities), the respondents argue for pursuing the statutory appeal under Section 45(5) of the Act, and for exercising interim relief considerations within that framework; pendency in related matters was noted by the Vacation Bench and the court references the need to channel the dispute through the appropriate statutory forum.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania	[(2010) 9 SCC 437]	Positive	Cited to establish that writ court should not grant interim relief where final relief should be sought in an appropriate forum; supports the court’s refusal to grant unwarranted interim relief and directs recourse to the statutory remedy.
Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar	[2021 (5) KLT 667 (SC)]	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner to argue natural justice; court does not rely on it as binding authority in its dispose-of directions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shaji K.T v. Malabar Devaswom Board and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **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 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO.13195 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHAJI.K.T AGED 45 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, KALATHUMTHODI HOUSE, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE P.O., PALAZHIPALA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 008 BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN A.R.PRAVITHA D.S.THUSHARA H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) T.ANCY MAYA S. KUMAR BERIN BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006** - **3 THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, SREE VALAYANAD BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, KOMMERI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 007** - **4 THE MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE VALAYANAD BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, KOMMERI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 007** **SRI R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN- STANDING COUNSEL ,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Anil K. Narendran, J The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Valayanad Bhagavathi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, to hear the petitioner before finalising the proceedings evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 and to permit him to adduce evidence both oral and documentary. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent not to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 without hearing the petitioner and without perusing the documents made mention in Ext.P3. 2. On 07.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 3 and 4. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for 3 W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 respondents 1 and 2. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 3 and 4. 4. Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would point out the judgment of this Court dated 20.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No.14154 of 2022. The said writ petition was one filed by the hereditary trustee of Valayanad Bhagavathi Temple in Kozhikode District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash order No.J2-2994/2019/MDB dated 16.04.2022 (Ext.P23) of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, in a proceedings under Section 45 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, initiated against him. By the said order, he was removed from the hereditary trusteeship of Valayanad Bhagavathi Temple, for the reasons stated in that order. In that writ petition, the hereditary trustee had raised various contentions, in order to challenge the order dated 16.04.2022. One of the contentions raised was that, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board passed the said order ignoring the pendency of W.P.(C)No.27286 of 2021, in which the common order dated 24.08.2021 in I.A.Nos.26, 27 and 28 of 2021 4 ## W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 in Case No.J2-2994/2019/MDB (Ext.P21) was under challenge. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar [2021 (5) KLT 667 (SC)]** , it is contended that, since the order dated 16.04.2022 is one issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, it can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. W.P.(C) No.14154 of 2022 was disposed by judgment dated 20.05.2022. Paragraphs 9 to 16 of that judgment reads thus: 9. Ext.P23 order of the 1[st] respondent Commissioner is one passed in a proceedings in which the petitioner was issued with a notice and was represented by a counsel. On 09.03.2022, the 1[st] respondent heard the learned counsel for the petitioner herein and also the learned counsel for supplementary respondents 2 and 3, namely, N.Kesavan Moosad and K.P.Kinhinarayanan Moosad. In case, the reasoning of the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P23 order is erroneous, it is for the petitioner to challenge that order by invoking the statutory remedy available under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act, before the 3[rd] respondent State. 10. In view of the provisions under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act, an appeal against the order of the Commissioner in a proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act has to be filed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Ext.P23 order is 5 W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 one dated 16.04.2022. The petitioner challenged that order in this writ petition, which is one filed on 18.04.2022. Therefore, the petitioner can be permitted to invoke the statutory remedy against Ext.P23 order, within a reasonable time to be fixed in this judgment. 11. On 19.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the Vacation Bench granted an interim stay of Ext.P23 order, for a period of two months, taking note of the pendency of W.P.(C)No.27286 of 2021, in which Ext.P21 order of the 1[st] respondent in I.A.Nos.26, 27 and 28 of 2021 in the very same proceedings was under challenge. That writ petition, along with connected matters, ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 17.05.2022. 12. In **Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437]** , a decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, the Apex Court reiterated that, the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. 13. As already noticed hereinbefore, the Vacation Bench granted interim stay of Ext.P23 order of the 1[st] respondent Commissioner, taking note of the pendency of W.P. (C)No.27286 of 2021. Therefore, the said order shall continue for a period to be fixed in this judgment, so as to 6 W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 enable the petitioner to challenge Ext.P23 order in an appeal filed under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act, before the 3[rd] respondent State, along with an application for interim relief. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall file an appeal before the 3[rd] respondent, against Ext.P23 order of the 1[st] respondent, within a reasonable time, along with an application for stay. Till consideration of that interlocutory application, the interim order granted by the Vacation Bench may be permitted to continue. 15. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that in case the petitioner files an appeal within the time limit to be stipulated in this judgment, along with an application for interim relief, the 3[rd] respondent shall consider the application for interim relief on 10.06.2022, with notice to both sides and thereafter an order in that interlocutory application shall be passed on or before 17.06.2022. 16. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; - (i) The petitioner shall challenge Ext.P23 order of the 1[st] respondent Commissioner by filing an appeal before the 3[rd] respondent State, invoking the provisions under sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, along with an application for interim relief. In case, the memorandum of appeal along with application for interim relief is filed before the 3[rd] respondent, after complying with the statutory 7 ## W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 requirements, before 10.06.2022, the 3[rd] respondent shall treat that appeal as one filed within the time limit specified in sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act. - (ii) The 3[rd] respondent shall consider the application for interim relief filed in that appeal on 10.06.2022 with notice to the Executive Officer, Sree Valayanad Devaswom and also the President and Secretary of Sree Valayanad Devi Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi and pass appropriate orders on that application, on or before 17.06.2022, uninfluenced by the order of stay granted by this Court in this writ petition, which shall continue to be in force till 17.06.2022 or the date on which the 3[rd] respondent passes orders in that application, whichever is earlier. - (iii) The petitioner shall serve a copy of the memorandum of appeal and stay petition and also a copy of this judgment to the Executive Officer of Valayanad Bhagavathi Temple and also the President and Secretary of Sree Valayanad Devi Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi and an acknowledgment to that effect made by them shall be enclosed along with the memorandum of appeal filed before the 3[rd] respondent.” Since the proceedings before the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner referred to in this writ petition has already been disposed of by the order dated 16.04.2022, which was marked as Ext.P23 in W.P.(C) No.14154 of 2022, we find that this writ petition can be disposed of, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all such contentions before the 8 W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 appropriate authority under sub-section(5) of Section 45 of the Act, at appropriate stage. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV 9 W.P.(C) No.13195 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13195/2022** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.2.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.40648/2018 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.12681/2019 DATED 26.4.2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA 17/2019 IN J6-6023/2017 DATED 27.4.2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J6-6023/2017 MDB DATED 13.5.2019 OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN RP NO.407/2019 IN WP 40648/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 19.12.2019**