Sree Parthasarathy Kshethra Bharana Sangam v. Malabar Devaswom Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/25TH BHADRA, 1939 ## **WP(C).No. 15601 of 2017 (A) ----------------------------** PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. SREE PARTHASARATHY KSHETHRA BHARANA SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-G.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN GURUVAYUR. 2. G.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT, SREE PARTHASARATHY KSHETHRA BHARANA SANGHAM, GURUVAYUR-680 101. 3. K.JAYADEVAN THE SECRETARY, SREE PARTHASARATHY KSHETHRA BHARANA SANGHAM, GURUVAYUR-680 101. BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.) SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA SRI.VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673006. 2. COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673006. 4. T.C.BIJU AUDIT INSPECTOR (EXECUTIVE OFFICER), KADAMPUZHA TEMPLE, KADAMPUZHA, VIA VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM-676552. 5. SREE PARTHASARATHY TEMPLE EMPLOYEES UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-UNNI VARANNATT, GURUVAYUR-680 101. **WP(C).No. 15601 of 2017 (A)** 6. SREEKUMAR S/O RAVINDRAN NAIR, PARAYIRIKKAL SREENIVAS HOUSE, KAPPIYOOR DESOM, POOKODE AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD-680 506. R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD R4 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON R5-R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R5-R6 BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.06.2017, THE COURT ON 16-09-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15601 of 2017 (A) ---------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.450/1973 DATED 13.5.1975. EXHIBIT P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.615/1975 DATED 19.6.1975. EXHIBIT P1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.3194 IN S.M.203/1975 OF MUNSIFF-LAND TRIBUNAL, CHAVAKKAD DATED 25.2.1976. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW OF THE IST PETITIONER SANGHAM DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.2.2012. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.5.2016. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18850/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 19.8.2016. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2016. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN SLP NO.3672/2017 OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED 30.1.2017. EXHIBIT P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THEORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO.3672/2017 DATED 20.2.2017. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.60/2016-SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 22.8.2016. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.4.2017. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER, GURUVAYOOR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK DATED 26.4.2017. EXHIBIT P10(a):TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.4.2017. EXHIBIT P10(b):TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION (PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT) DATED 28.1.2017. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 27.4.2017. **WP(C).No. 15601 of 2017 (A)** RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT R4A : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.05.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4B : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 12.06.2017 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R6(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN RP.897 OF 2016 AND RP 214 OF 2017 IN WP(C)18850/2016 DATED 05.06.2017. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V, JJ.** .............................................................................. **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** ......................................................................... **Dated this the 16[th] September, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.** The challenge is against finalisation of the Scheme for managing the affairs of Sree Pardhasaradhi Temple, Guruvayoor, as per Ext.P10(a) proceedings, in furtherance to Ext.P5 verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court. 2. The main grievance is that, the Scheme finalised is not in conformity with the directions given by this Court as per Ext.P5, it being without making a reference to the Byelaws of the petitioners' Sangham, (a Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act) with modifications , if any, and ordered to be taken as the basis and also for not including the representative of the petitioners Sangham in the Managing Committee. **2** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** 3. Sree Pardhasaradhi Temple, Guruvayoor is believed to have been established by Adi Sankaracharya and it is situated in a total extent of about 126 cents of land comprised in different survey numbers. Earlier, the property belonged to Mallissery Mana; from whom it was taken on lease by Marath Madhavan on 'Kanom' right, as per document No.349/1923 of the SRO, Kottappady. The 'Kanom' right was subsequently purchased by one Krishnan Nair, from Mr. Madhavan Nair in the year 1946, from whom, a portion of the land having an extent of about 58 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.169/4, 169/5 and 169/6 of Iringapram Village was purchased by the Petitioners' Sangham, as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed dated 13.05.1975 of the SRO, Kottappady. Existence of the Temple is also specifically mentioned in the said document. Later, the petitioners' Sangham purchased the nearby property having an extent of 25 cents in Sy.No.168/9 from one Lazarunni, as per Ext.P1(a) dated 19.06.1975. Shortly thereafter, another extent of 38 cents comprised in Sy.No.169/3 **3** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** also came to the hands of the Sangam as per Ext.P1(b) purchase certificate dated 25.02.1976 issued by the Land Tribunal, Chavakkad. As such, the petitioner was pwning, possessing and enjoying the total extent of 121 cents (total claimed to be 126 cents) and was managing the affairs of the Temple ever since 1973 onwards. 4. The original entrustment of a small extent of property where the deity is situated,, is discernible from the Schedule to Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the draft Byelaws of petitioners' Sangham, pursuant to registration as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Temple was stated as a 'Private Temple' and it was lying in a dilapidated condition, which was revived by the efforts taken by the petitioner's Sangham, incurring huge expenditure in this regard. There was no complaint from any corner for quite long and nearly after three decades, few employees engaged in the Temple in connection with the affairs of the Temple and some devotees supporting **4** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** them preferred two complaints as O.A.8 and 12 of 2010, before the Deputy Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board under Section 57(a) of HR & CE Act ('Act' in short). The main allegation in the complaint was that, no salary was being paid to the employees on par with the income from the Temple and that there was total mis-management of the affairs. 5. After considering the merit, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the complaint as per Ext.P3 dated 27.02.2012 holding that the Administration of the Temple was quite good and there was no merit with regard to the alleged lesser remuneration/Salary. This made the complainant to prefer appeal before the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board as A.P.8 of 2012 under Section 61 of the Madras HR & CE Act 1951. After completing the procedural formalities, the appeal was finally heard by the Commissioner and on recording satisfaction of the merit involved, the appeal was allowed as per Ext.P4 order dated 23.05.2016 declaring that the Temple was a 'Public **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** **5** Temple' and that a Scheme was to be framed for managing the affairs of the Temple. The direction given by the Commissioner, as borne out from the concluding paragraph of Ext.P4, are in the following terms: _“1. The order of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.8/10 and 12/10 are hereby annulled._ _2. It is declared that Sri Parthasaradhi Temple, Guruvayoor is a religious institution as defined u/s.6(17) of the Madras HR &CE Act, 1951._ _3. The Deputy Commissioner shall frame a scheme of administration to the temple providing for adequate representation to the bharana sangham considering the credentials of the sangham including present state of affairs._ _4. Till such scheme is framed the Area Committee, Malappuram shall appoint a single trustee for administering the temple in exercise of the powers conferred u/s.41 of the Act.._ _5. The President and Secretary of Sri Parthasaradhi Temple bharana sangham are directed to hand over charge of accounts, bank pass book, valuables and utensils along with all records to the single trustee so appointed in the presence of the Divisional Inspector.”_ **6** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** If at all anybody was aggrieved of by Ext.P4, it was to be raised as provided under Section 62 of the Act. No such appeal was preferred by the petitioners, nor did they find it necessary to approach this Court as well. 6. However, Ext.P4 was sought to be challenged by two devotees by filing W.P(C)No.18850 of 2016 before this Court. The petitioners herein were shown as respondents 8 and 9, who evidently supported the challenge. After hearing both the sides, the above Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P5 verdict dated 19.08.2016 holding that the declaration given by the Commissioner in the impugned order that the Temple was a 'Public Temple' was not liable to be found fault with. This Court upheld the necessity to frame a Scheme and Byelaws of the Sangham was directed to be treated as 'Draft Scheme', leaving it to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the question as to whether any further modification was to be made, to have it finalised accordingly. Taking note of the observations **7** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** in the impugned order that administration of the Temple by the Sangham was not criticised or found to be defective in any manner, the directions given by the Deputy Commissioner to have the operations continued by a Single Trustee, replacing the Sangham was found as not correct or sustainable. It was accordingly, that the directions No.4 and 5 in the impugned order were vacated and the existing office bearers were permitted to be continued as a Committee of Trustees for administering the Temple till the Scheme was finalised by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. The above verdict was sought to be reviewed by the writ petitioners by filing R.P.897 of 2016. The petitioners' Sangham approached the Civil Court by filing OS. 60 of 2016 stated as preferred under Section 62 of the Act on 22.08.2016. The petitioners' Sangham also moved the Apex court by filing SLP against Ext.P5 judgment, wherein 'leave' was obtained on 30.01.2017, ordering notice to the respondents and they **8** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** obtained an interim order of 'status quo' as on that date, vide Ext.P7. According to the petitioners, the contesting respondents appeared before the Apex Court and on making a reference to the pendency of the Review Petition before this Court, Ext.P7 order was recalled and the SLP was dismissed as per Ext.P7(a) order dated 20.02.2017. In the said circumstance, the petitioners' Sangham has come up with a Review Petition as R.P.214 of 2017 on 25.02.2017. Later, both the review petitions were considered together and they were disposed of as per Ext.R6 (a) common order dated 05.06.2017 (which is produced along with the counter affidavit by the 6[th] respondent), whereby it was made clear that the observations made by this Court in Ext.P5 would not be a bar to the litigants to pursue the remedy before the Civil Court, in a properly instituted suit under Section 62 of the Act and further that the parties would be free to take all available contentions before the Civil Court, in exercise of the statutory remedy under Section 62 (1)(ii) of the Act. The **9** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** matter was ordered to be considered in the said circumstance, untrammelled by any finding on merits contained in Ext.P5 judgment and in Ext.R6(a) order passed in the Review Petitions. 8. While so, the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, had issued notice to the parties by registered post as to the formulation of a Draft Scheme and since there was no proper response from the part of the Petitioners' Sangham and since the Byelaws were never produced by them, a Draft Scheme was prepared and published vide Ext.P6 on 30.11.2016 inviting objections from all concerned. Admittedly, no objection was raised to the Draft Scheme from the part of the petitioners. It was finalised by the Deputy commissioner and published in the Gazette dated 25.04.2017, as evident from Ext.P10(b). Based on Ext.P10(b), the Audit Inspector by name T.C.Biju employed in the Malabar Devaswom Board as Executive Officer was given additional charge of the Sree Pardhasaradhi Temple, vide Ext.P10 (a) proceedings of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The above **10** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** proceedings were sought to be implemented forthwith and the Executive Officer took steps to take over the management of the Temple forcefully on 26.04.2017. The said Executive Officer issued Ext.P10 intimation to the Bankers of the petitioners' Sangham to freeze the account of the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners were kept in dark as to Ext.P10, P10(a) and P10(b) proceedings, who came to know of the same only from their Bankers. Ext.P11 was issued by the Executive Officer to the second petitioner on 27.04.2017, to hand over the keys and to comply with such other requirements. It was challenging the above proceedings that the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, raising various grounds. 9. The above Writ Petition was in fact moved before the Vacation Court. When it came up before the vacation Bench on 09.05.2017, it was ordered to be listed after the mid-summer vacation. On re-opening of the Court, after mid-summer vacation, it came up for consideration again on 29.05.2017, **11** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** when the writ petition was admitted. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board, urgent notice was ordered by Speed Post to the respondents 4 to 7, also granting an interim stay of Exts.P10(a), P10(b) and P11 orders and ordering the writ petition to be tagged along with the Review Petitions. It was also ordered by the Bench that 'status quo ante' shall be maintained till the disposal of the Review Petitions and that the petitioners could continue to administer the Temple during the pendency of the above Review Petitions and the present writ petition. Since the pleadings are complete, this Court found it appropriate to have the matter finally heard and adjudicated. Heard accordingly. 10. It is pointed out by Mr. V.V. Asokan, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that, in a civil suit filed under Section 62 of the Act, no interim stay of the orders passed by the Commissioner can be granted because of the statutory bar. But **12** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** the said bar/hurdle is only in respect of granting any stay and is not applicable in the case of granting an interim order of injunction, as made clear by a Division Bench of this Court in _**Ramani Nessiar vs. Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department**_ **[2008(1) KLT 595** ], placing reliance on the verdict rendered by the Madras High Court in _**Muthusami Gurukkal vs. Ayyasami Thevan**_ ( **1958 MLJ 256)** . In the said circumstance, it is stated that the petitioners' Sangham has already moved the Civil Court where the civil suit filed by them is pending by filing an I.A. for granting an 'interim order of injunction' against taking over the affairs of the Temple and another I.A. to amend the plaint in respect of the challenge sought to be raised with reference to the subsequent orders and proceedings. It is stated that the said I.As are still pending before the Civil Court. 11. There is no dispute to the fact that, after admitting the above writ petition and passing interim order by this Court on 29.05.2017, the Review petitions were finally heard and disposed **13** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** of as per Ext.R6(a) order dated 05.06.2017, leaving it open for the parties to move the Civil Court, also granting an opportunity to raise all the contentions including whether the Temple was a 'Public Temple' or not and also making it clear that the observations in Ext.P5 judgment or in Ext.R6(a) order passed in the Review Petitions will not be a hurdle in finalising the matter, untrammeled by the observations therein. 12. It is also to be noted that Exts.P10, P10(a) and P10(b) proceedings were issued during the pendency of the Review Petitions and it has been explicitly made clear in Ext.P10(b) that finalisation of the Scheme was subject to the result of the R.P.897 of 2016. As pointed out already, the challenge raised in the writ petition is mainly against the alleged hasty action pursued by the authorities and also as to the finalisation of the Scheme, contrary to the directions contained in Ext.P5 in so far as Ext.P2 bye-laws of the petitioners' Sangham were not treated as the basis and no representation was given to the Sangham in **14** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** the Governing Body. It is also pointed out that, since the petitioners' Sangham was managing the affairs of the Temple right from 1973, that too after purchase of various extents of property spending huge amounts, it will only be equitable to permit them to continue to manage the affairs of the Temple till the civil suit is finalised. 13. Shri K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that, dismissal of the SLP preferred by the petitioners' Sangham was on revealing the foul play pursued by them. With reference to the contents of SLP No.1971 of 2017 filed by the petitioners before the Apex Court against the judgment of this Court (a copy of which is made available by the learned counsel for the petitioners), it is submitted that the issue was projected before the Apex Court, as if the petitioners were not parties to Ext.P5 judgment. It was accordingly, that the 'leave' was sought for to file the SLP, which was granted as evident from Ext.P7 order dated 30.01.2017, issuing notice to ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** ## **15** the respondents and also granting an interim order of 'status quo'. On appearance of the party respondents, it was brought to the notice of the Apex Court that the petitioners who filed the SLP were actually included in the party array, as respondents 8 and 9 of Ext.P5 judgment. It was on bringing up the above crucial aspect to the notice of the Apex Court, that Ext.P7 order was recalled and the SLP was dismissed as per Ext.P7(a) order dated 20.02.2017. 14. The factual position is sought to be explained by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners stating that somebody else was appearing before the Apex Court and further that the submission made before the Apex Court was only to the effect that the petitioners, as such, were not parties to Ext.P5 proceedings before this Court. The description of the parties in the cause title is referred to and it is stated that, in the present writ petition as well as in the SLP filed before the Apex Court, it was _**Sree Parthasaradhi Kshethra Bharana Sangam**_ , **16** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** whereas in Ext.P5 writ petition, the parties were arrayed as respondents 8 and 9 (i.e the **President** and **Secretary** ). The said explanation appears to be rather puerile and this Court finds that the petitioners herein who were the petitioners before the Apex Court were very much included in the party array, in so far as they were shown as respondents 8 and 9 in Ext.P5. That apart, there is no case for the petitioners that the 'President' and 'Secretary' of the Sangham, who were shown as respondents 8 and 9 in Ext.P5 writ petition filed before this Court were acting contrary to the interest of the Sangham and hence the Sangham was represented before the Supreme Court and are being represented before this Court through other office bearers . 15. We have gone through the contents of the SLP filed before the Apex Court as made available to this Court, It has been categorically stated in the tabular column given therein that the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before this High Court. It has also been clearly stated in Paragraph '2' **17** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** of the SLP that the petitioners in the SLP were not parties before the High Court of Kerala. It is wrong. The course and proceedings pursued by the petitioners cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. 16. With regard to the alleged violation of the directions contained in Ext.P5 as to the preparation of the Draft Scheme and the representation to be given to the Petitioners' Sangham in the Governing Body, it is to be noted that Ext.P6 Draft Scheme published by the Deputy Commissioner clearly refers to Ext.P5 judgment passed by this Court and the registered letter sent with acknowledgment due, to the President and Secretary of the Temple Bharana Sangham (petitioners), directing to furnish a copy of the Bye-laws. The President/Secretary of the Temple Bharana Sangham, as per their reply dated 22.11.2016 sought for further time, with reference to the pendency of R.P.897 of 2016 before this Court, also stating that certified copy of the Bye-laws was not available. Nothing else was stated by the **18** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** petitioners and it was in the said circumstance, that the Deputy Commissioner was compelled to proceed with further steps to finalise the proceedings; subject to the result of R.P.897 of 2016 pending before this Court. It was accordingly, that Ext.P6 notice dated 30.11.2016 was issued, publishing the Draft Scheme, also inviting objections/suggestions from all corners, to be submitted on or before 30.12.2016 and also informing all concerned that a personal hearing will be conducted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at 11.00 a.m on 02.01.2017. Admittedly, the said opportunity was never made use of by the petitioners, who did not submit either a copy of Ext.P2 Byelaw (to be made as the basis, as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment) or make any objection/suggestion or modification to be made in this regard. No request was also made, giving particulars of the members to be included in the Governing Body and it was after taking note of the available materials, that the Draft Scheme was finalised by the Deputy Commissioner, which was published in **19** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** the Gazette dated 25.04.2017, as borne by Ext.P10(b). The sequence of events has been clearly mentioned in the opening paragraph of Ext.P10(b) as well. This being the position, it is no more open for the petitioners to contend that there was infringement of any directions given by this Court in Ext.P5 with regard to the manner in which the Draft Scheme was to be prepared and finalised or as to the representation to be given to the office bearers of the petitioners' Sangham in the Governing Body. The contention raised to the contrary is devoid of any merit and it is repelled. 17. With regard to the allegations and insinuation against the Devaswom and its officers, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board submits, with reference to the contents of the statement dated 06.06.2017 (wrongly showing the date as 31.06.2107, both in the Statement and in the I.A.No.8457 of 2017 filed seeking to accept the above Statement) and also with reference to the additional statement **20** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** dated 07.06.2017, that there is absolutely no merit in the said allegation and that the proceedings were actually pursued by the authorities strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and also giving effect to the directions given by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. It is also pointed out that, if the petitioners are aggrieved of Ext.P10(b) Scheme, the proper remedy is only to file an appeal under Section 61 of the Act before the Commissioner; and since the petitioners have approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is also pointed out that the I.As filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court are not maintainable and are not liable to be granted, as there is a statutory bar for granting stay by the Civil Court against any order passed by the Commissioner in terms of the relevant provisions of law, as mentioned under Section 62 of the Act. Such relief cannot be granted in the form of an 'injunction', though there is no bar with regard to invocation of power under **21** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. The law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in **2008(1) KLT 595** ( **cited supra** ) or the ruling relied on by the Bench therein will not enable the petitioners to get any such direct relief, which amounts to 'stay'. 18. After going through the relevant provisions of law and the judgment as aforesaid, we are of the firm view that the observations made by the Madras High Court in **1958 MLJ 256 (cited supra)** as well as this Court with regard to ban imposed by Section 62 of the Act will not take away the power of the Civil Court for granting an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. On the other hand, it is only with regard to the power of the Court to grant such other incidental reliefs, by way of interim injunction, which is to sub-serve the main relief and that's all. 19. Mr. Mohan C. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent /Executive Officer appointed by the Malabar Devaswom Board submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed dated 14.06.2017 and the documents produced along with **22** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** the said affidavit that there is absolutely no merit in the allegations and the insinuations levelled against the said respondent in so far as the course and proceedings can be pursued strictly in conformity with the law. The sequence of events was reported to the Commissioner as per Ext.R4A dated 26.05.2017, particularly referring to the reluctance on the part of the petitioners to co-operate with the course and proceedings. It is also pointed out with reference to the report submitted by the Commissioner, that steps were taken to streamline the affairs of the Temple considering the best interest of the Temple and the devotees. The various steps taken in this regard have been described under separate heads of the report dated 26.05.2017. 20 **.** Reference is also made to the repairs/maintenance effected wherever necessary, including the waste disposal and arranging such other amenities/infrastructure for the benefit of the pilgrims/devotees. The financial position prevailing as on the date of taking of the affairs of the Temple on 26.04.2017 and **23** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** the substantial increase in the income under different heads as on the date of the report dated 26.05.2017 have been specifically adverted to. The action pursued by the persons under the petitioners' Sangham on 23.05.2017, taking law into their hands and disrupting the duties of the Executive Officer, also threatening him of dire consequences including the threat to kill, made the officer to file a complaint before the Police, who registered the Crime No.452 of 2017 on 24.05.2017 against the culprits. It was thereafter, that the petitioners' Sangham got the writ petition admitted on 29.05.2017, also getting an interim order to cause them to be permitted to manage the affairs of the Temple. The learned counsel points out that, at no point of time, was there any forceful action from the part of the 4[th] respondent; nor has he addressed the petitioners in any objectionable manner. Utmost concern and regards towards the petitioners is stated as expressed even in Ext.P11 dated 27.04.2017, addressed to the second petitioner herein, who is **24** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** the President of the first petitioner Sangham and the said petitioner has been described as a 'torch bearer' for the developmental activities carried out in the Temple. It was accordingly, that prayers and best wishes were extended to him, as discernible from Ext.P11 itself. 21. After hearing both the sides and on going through the materials forming part of the records, this Court finds that, it will not be proper for this Court to express any opinion with regard to the merits involved, as the issue is pending consideration before the Sub Court and more so, in view of the observations made by this Court as per Ext.R6(a) order passed in the Review Petitions. This Court also does not intend to express anything with regard to the maintainability of the suit or the I.As filed for amendment of the pleadings, challenging the subsequent proceedings. There is also a contention for the respondents 5 and 6 that, no such amendment is possible, as once the amendment is allowed, enabling the petitioners/complainants to challenge the **25** ## **W.P(C)No.15601 OF 2017** subsequent proceedings i.e., including the final Scheme, it will relate back to the date of the suit; whereas no such final Scheme was in existence on the date of the suit. This Court is of the firm view that there is absolutely no merit to entertain the reliefs sought for in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly; without prejudice to pursue the civil suit. **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** **JUDGE** lk