Sree Poornathrayeesa Bhakthajana Samithi, Thripunithura v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT** **& THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933** **WP(C).No. 18713 of 2011(L)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **SREE POORNATHRAYEESA BHAKTHAJANA SAMITHI,THRIPUNITHURA,REP; BY ITS PRESIDENT, A.VENUNATH,S/O.ACHUTHANANDAN,'POORANASREE', AMBILI NAGAR,NORTH FORT,THRIPUNITHURA.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR.** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,THRISSUR-1,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680 001.** **2. SREE POORNATHRAYEESA SEVA SANGHAM, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY,SEVASANGHAM BUILDINGS, EAST GATE POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682 031.** ## ***ADDL. R3.IMPLEADED:** **3. RAMADAS R.VARMA, EDOOP PALACE,TRIPUNITHURA.** ***IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 IN IA.12931/2011.** ## ****ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED:** **4.SHANTHA THAMPURAN, D/O.M.SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT EASWARA SEVA PALACE, KOTTAKKAKAM, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ****IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 16.08.2011 IN IA.13442/2011.** **W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L:** ## *****ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED:** ## **5. M.HARIDAS,** **S/O.K.RAMAN NAIR, MADASSERY HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## *****IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R5. AS PER ORDER DATED** **20.09.2011 IN IA.13446/2011.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,S.C,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,** **R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP,** **ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE, OMBUDSMAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** ## **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY SEVA SANGHAM DTD. 12/11/2000 WITH REGARD TO THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE AFFAIRS OF POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE.** **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE R.2. REQUESTING MONEY FROM THE RESPONDENT FOR PURCHASING AN ELEPHANT.** **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.33180/00 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SLP.(CIVIL) NO.19453/2003 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.** ## **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPROVED BYELAW OF THE KSHETHRA SAMITHI.** **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 12/09/2001.** **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 21/08/2001.** **EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 09/05/2005.** **EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COCHIN ROYAL FAMILY BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR DEVASWOM.** **EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR DEVASWOM BOARD.** **EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/01/1999 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** ## **EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. R1/428/97 DTD. 28/10/2000.** **EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE R.2.** **EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/09/03.** **EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 20/1/03.** **EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 10/01/04.** **EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DTD. 18/08/1999.** **EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DTD. 18/08/1999.** **EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR TO THE BOARD DTD. 22/03/1999.** **EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1.** **EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 13/07/2008.** **W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L:** ## **EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SOLICITING DONATION FROM DEVOTEES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL FESTIVAL BOOKLETS.** ## **EXT.P.23: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SOLICITING DONATION FROM DEVOTEES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL FESTIVAL BOOKLETS.** ## **EXT.P.24: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SOLICITING DONATION FROM DEVOTEES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL FESTIVAL BOOKLETS.** **EXT.P.25: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE SHOWING THE PARTICULARS OF WE SITE MAINTAINED BY SEVA SANGHAM.** ## **EXT.P.26: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN THE SEB SITE.** **EXT.P.27: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE DEVASWOM MEMBER DTD. 24/02/2009.** **EXT.P.28: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 853/10 OF THRIPUNITHURA POLICE STATION.** **EXT.P.29: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS PUBLISHED IN POTHUVRITHANTHAM DTD. 19/04/2010.** **EXT.P.30: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 19/04/2010.** ## **EXT.P.31: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 08/01/2008.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.R1.(A): COPY OF THE GUIDELINES.** **EXT.R1.(B): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/10/2007 IN I.A. NO.16926/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO.16904/2006.** **EXT.R1.(C): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/10/2007 IN I.A. NO. 14031/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO.16904/2006.** **EXT.R1.(D): COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1.2931/06 DTD. 09/11/2007.** **EXT.R1.(E): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 15/11/2007.** **EXT.R1.(F): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 27/09/2010.** **EXT.R1.(G): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/01/2011 IN D.B.A. NO. 11/2011.** **EXT.R1.(H): COPY OF THE ORDER DTED. 27/07/2011 D.B.A. NO. 11/2011.** **EXT.R2A1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/03/1997 IN CMP.477/97 IN CDB NO.1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.R2.A2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/06/1997 IN CMP.477/97 IN CDB.NO.1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L:** **EXT.R2.A3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 15/07/1997 IN CMP.477/97 IN CDB.NO.1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.4403/97 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.R2.C: COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 09/12/2003 FILED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD IN SLP.4459-60/03 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.** **EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 31/05/2008 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2008.** **EXT.R2.D.2: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 14/07/2009 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2009.** **EXT.R2.D3: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 14/07/2010 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2010.** **EXT.R2.D4: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 22/06/2001 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2011.** **EXT.R2.E1: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 12/07/2008 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 30/06/2008.** **EXT.R2.E2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 05/02/2009 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 31/12/2008.** **EXT.R2.E3: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20/07/2009 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 30/06/2009.** **EXT.R2.E4: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 16/03/2010 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 31/12/2009.** **EXT.R2.E5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 18/09/2010 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 30/06/2010.** **EXT.R2.E6: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 07/04/2011 FOR THE PERIOD 1/7/2010 TO 31/3/2011.** ## **EXT.R2.F: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/09/2007 PASSED IN O.S. 692/2004.** **EXT.R2.G1: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2002.** **EXT.R2.G2: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2003.** **EXT.R2.G3: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2005.** **EXT.R2.G4: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2006.** **EXT.R2.H: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 24/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY F.A.O ISSUED TO R.2. WITH COVERING LETTER DTD. 07/10/2009.** **EXT.R2.I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED AS 2004 (2) KLJ 820.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L:** **EXT.R2.J: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/12/2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION 16904/2006.** **EXT.R2.K: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/07/2007 IN I.A. 6706/07 IN W.P.(C).16904/06.** **EXT.R2.L: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/10/07 PASSED IN I.A. 12926/07 IN W.P.(C). 16904/06.** **EXT.R2.M: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/10/07 PASSED IN I.A. 14031/07 IN W.P.(C). 16904/06.** **EXT.R2.N: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.112/11/2007 DT.D 15/11/2007 BETWEEN SEVA SANGHAM AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **EXT.R2.O: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/08/2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. NO. 689/07 IN UNNUMBERED RP.IN I.A. NO. 14031/2007 IN W.P.(C).16904/2006.** **EXT.R2.P: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/10/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).28981/2007.** **EXT.R2.Q: COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DTD. 08/10/2002 SUBMITTED BY SRI. PARAMESWARA PANICKER, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.** **EXT.R2.R: COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY T.N. RAMAN BHATTATHIRIPPAD.** **EXT.R2.S: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF JOINED MEETING OF 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER OF RENOVATION OF SREEKOVIL OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE.** **EXT.R2.T: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA NO.11/2011.** **EXT.R2.U: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 07/04/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA.NO.11/2011.** **EXT.R2.V: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/04/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA.NO.11/2011.** **EXT.R2.W: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/06/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA.NO.11/2011.** **EXT.R2.X: COPY OF THE PETITION NO.58/2008 FILED BEFORE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN BY PETITIONER ON 01/03/2008.** **EXT.R2.Y: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SEVA SAMGHAM ON 09/06/2008 BEFORE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN IN PETITION 58/2008.** **EXT.R2.Z: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 12/08/2008 COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER BY HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN IN PETITON NO. 58/2008.** **EXT.R2.AA: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.D 15/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA.** **EXT.R2.AB: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 12/08/2009 SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L:** **EXT.R2.AC: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A9.B453/09 DT.D 09/09/2009 ISSUED BY SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TO THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPT.,** **EXT.R2.AD: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H1-2931/06 DTD. 09/11/2007 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **EXT.R2.AE: COPY OF THE O.P.NO.33180/2000-Y FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.R2.AF: COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2000 SUBMITTED BY SEVA SAMGHAM FOR TEMPLE ACTIVITIES.** **EXT.R2.AG: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP DTD. 19/11/2010 ISSUED BY KERALA FOREST DEPT TO THE R.2.** **EXT.R2.AH: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO A1 SECURITY SYSTEM.** **EXT.R2.AI: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24/04/2010 GIVEN BY A1 SECURITY SERVICE TO THE R.2.** **EXT.R3.(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2004 (2) KLJ 820.** **EXT.R3.(B): COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DTD. 20/01/2004 BY THE PROPRIETOR, A.G. RAJU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT.** **EXT.R3.(C): COPY OF THE BYELAW OF THE R.2.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Prv.** # **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.18713 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner who claims to be an unregistered association of persons by name Sree Poornathrayeesa Bhakthajana Samithi, Thripunithura. A person claiming to be the President of the said Association has filed this petition. In the petition, five specific reliefs are claimed. 2. Before we come to the nature of the specific reliefs claimed, we deem it appropriate to refer broadly to the scope of the petition. Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura is an A-grade temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board. This temple is situated at Thripunithura, the former capital of the Cochin State. It is claimed that the said temple is unique in its historical importance. While the petitioner claims that the petitioner is an Association of devotees of Sree Poornathrayeesan, Thripunithura, that assertion is disputed by the 2[nd] respondent. **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 2 :- According to the second respondent, the petitioner has no locus standii. It is an association of individuals and they cannot claim any legal status. Second respondent raises scathing criticism that the petitioner has no moral authority also to speak on behalf of the deity or the devotees of the temple. We deem it unnecessary to go into that larger question. Though there is a contention that the petitioner, being an unregistered association cannot maintain this application in its name as of right, we do not think it necessary even to go into that question in detail as we are called upon to invoke and entertain our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whoever brings the notice of this Court relevant facts, we do not propose to ignore relevant facts if any on the mere technical plea that the petitioner is not duly registered. Suffice it to say that, we are not persuaded to feel that the questions raised need be gone into in any detail in this petition. 1[st] respondent is the Cochin Devaswom Board (the C.D.B hereafter). The second respondent is Sree Poornathrayeesa Seva Sangham (the Sangham hereafter) represented by its Secretary. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is a registered society under the Travancore Cochin **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 3 :- Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955. It is submitted that the said Sangham had started its activities long back; but they were registered as a Society in 1975. It is the assertion of the second respondent that the second respondent has nothing but the interest of the deity, the temple and the devotees in mind. They have been carrying on their activities in accordance with their bye laws (Ext.R3(c)). According to them, from 1975 to 2001, they were actively associating themselves with the activities of the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura. Members of the second respondent, it is claimed, are selfless devotees whose only interest is to ensure that affairs of the temple are carried on with the pomp, glory and piety which is expected in the temple by the devotees. 3. Even though the petition was initially filed with only respondents 1 and 2 on the party array, subsequently respondents 3 to 5 have been impleaded. The 3[rd] respondent claims to be a devotee of the temple as also a member of the Cochin Royal family, the family deity of which is Sree Poornathrayeesan. It can broadly be said that respondents 2 and **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 4 :- 3 go hand in hand in this petition. The 4[th] respondent subsequently got herself impleaded. She also claims to be member of the royal family of erstwhile Cochin State. It can broadly be said that the 4[th] respondent supports the petitioner. The 5[th] respondent, who later on got impleaded as a party, claims to be a devotee, not interested in taking sides at all. The 5[th] respondent has made before Court certain grievances, submissions and proposals which will be considered later on the appropriate occasion when we deal with the specific reliefs claimed. 4. The petition broadly reveals grievances of the petitioner against the second respondent Sangham and the alleged attitude of acquiescence and inaction on the part of the 1[st] respondent against the allegedly improper activities of the second respondent. 5. We note that this inter se dispute/rivalry between the petitioner and the second respondent has started long back and a long list of past events bear testimony to the inability of the petitioner and the second respondent to see eye to eye in many matters. We deem it unnecessary to advert to that sad history of **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 5 :- acrimony between the petitioner and the second respondent both of whom, if true to their proclaimed objectives and must be able to work in harmony and hence in the interests of the deity and devotees of the temple. 6. In the nature of the disputes that are raised to which we shall advert to in detail later, we wanted the Amicus Curiae/Standing Counsel for the Ombudsman to help us in the proper disposal of this case. On behalf of the State, we had wanted the learned Government Pleader also to appear and assist this Court. They have appeared and assisted the Court. 7. The six specific prayers made in this writ petition are enumerated below: i) To direct the Cochin Devaswom Board to constitute a Kshethra Kshema Samithy in the Tripoonithura Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple in accordance with the approved bye-law. ii) Direct the 1[st] respondent to implement Ext.P3 and take possession of the movable and immovable properties purchased by the 2[nd] respondent Samithy. iii) Declare that no organisation/association of devotees can function in any Temple under Cochin Devaswom Board which is not **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 6 :- constituted in accordance with Ext.P5 bye law. iv) Prohibit any organization/association/seva sangham from collecting fund in any form, from the general public or devotees in the name of deities in Temples attached to the Devaswom Board. v) Direct the 2[nd] respondent to submit the entire accounts collected till date from the general public/devotees and from other sources to the local fund Auditor of Cochin Devaswom Board for audit. vi) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 8. The 6[th] of the prayers is only residuary prayer and we need concern ourselves with the five specific prayers enumerated above as prayers (i) to (v). 9. Prayer No.i): According to the petitioner, there is no Temple Advisory Committee/Kshethra Kshema Samithi in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura (the temple hereinafter) now. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent Sangham is let loose by the 1[st] respondent and the Sangham is unauthorisedly exercising various functions in the temple **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 7 :- holding themselves to be the Temple Advisory Committee/Kshethra Kshema Samithi. We shall hereinafter refer to the said Committee as 'the Samithi'. 10. To trace the history of the Samithi, our attention has been drawn to the High Power Committee appointed by this Court to go into the affairs of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. It is unnecessary to extract the entire history. It is the common case that the need for an Advisory Committee was perceived and Ext.P5 guidelines/bye-laws (Niyamavali) was issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board. It is the grievance of the petitioner that such a Committee as contemplated by Ext.P5 has not been constituted for temple now and in that vacuum the second respondent is de facto functioning such Samithi. It is in this context that the prayer is made that the Samithi may be duly constituted in accordance with Ext.P5 or any other relevant rules/guidelines/provision. Respondents 1 and 2 have a common response to this grievance. Respondents 1 and 2 submit that Ext.P5 is not in force any longer. It is their case that Ext.R1(a) is the relevant guideline presently available. This does not have the force of law and it is only a guideline **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 8 :- issued by the 1[st] respondent/Devaswom Board in exercise of its executive responsibility to properly administer the temple. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 point out that neither Ext.P5 nor Ext.R1(a) has the force of a binding rule. They are only self-regulatory guidelines issued by the Devaswom Board to draw support and assistance from a duly constituted body of devotees to help, guide and advise the Board for the proper administration of the temple. Relying on the decision in ## **M.K.Ramachandra Menon v. Cochin Devaswom Board &** **Ors. [2004 (2) KLJ 820],** it is contended that neither Ext.P5 nor Ext.R1(a) can be made use of by the petitioner or any other to claim any rights. In fact, Ext.R1(a) has been formulated after the judgment in **Ramachandra Menon** (Supra), points out by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel submits that it is not as though no body has been constituted in accordance with Ext.R1(a). It is pointed out that after Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) orders were passed by the Devaswom Bench of the High Court, Ext.R1(d) order was issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board. Clause 8 of the said proceedings speaks about the right of the second respondent **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 9 :- Sangham to act as the Samithi. We extract below clause 8 of Ext.R1(d). 8. Sevasangham (i.e. the second respondent herein) is permitted to conduct the annual festivals and other functions at the temple during the period of renovation and can also act as temple advisory committee in order to facilitate proper execution of the renovation work.” Subsequently, Ext.R1(e) agreement was entered into between respondents 1 and 2. 11. A brief reference to Exts.R1(b) to R1(e) may be relevant. There was a proposal for re-construction of the Sreekovil of the temple. There, the dispute was to how and in what manner the renovation has to be undertaken. The second respondent had raised objections to the proposal which the 1[st] respondent had made for the renovation of the Sreekovil. The 2[nd] respondent had offered to get the work of renovation done more expeditiously and less expensively. It is accordingly that Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) orders were passed by the Devaswom Bench of this Court. That led us to Ext.R1(d) proceedings which in turn led to execution of Ext.R1(e). It is unnecessary to advert ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 10 :- in detail to all these proceedings. The relevant contention is that under Ext.R1(d) and R1(e) the 2[nd] respondent Sangham is permitted to function as the Samithi. It is not as though this is a private arrangement between respondents 1 and 2. High Court has been apprised of all the relevant details and the renovation work is being conducted by the Sangham with the approval of the Devaswom Board. The work is being monitored by the said Bench. The work is not completed and at the moment, time is available for respondents 1 and 2 to complete the work till 31/10/2011. Till such work is completed as approved by the Devaswom Bench and as revealed from Exts.R1(d) and R1(e), the 2[nd] respondent is entitled to function as Samithi. The 2[nd] respondent asserts that the 1[st] respondent has not so far raised any valid objections against the manner in which the second respondent is discharging its duties in connection with the renovation work or in connection with their duties as Samithi. In these circumstances, it is prayed that there is absolutely no necessity to issue any specific directions in respect of prayer No. (i). ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 11 :- 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that the Devaswom Board (1[st] respondent) has no intention of permitting the second respondent to indefinitely function as the Samithi. As soon as the renovation work is completed, Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) (order and agreement) shall come to termination and it shall be open to the 1[st] respondent to constitute a Samithi in accordance with Ext.R1(a) which is presently in force. It is not as though the 1[st] respondent has any partiality, prejudice or bias in favour of the second respondent. They are continuing as the Samithi by virtue of Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) from 2007. They are entitled to so continue as the Samithi till the renovation work is completed. The Board is only waiting for the work to be completed and thereupon appropriate further steps to constitute another Samithi in accordance with Ext.R1(a) shall be undertaken, submits the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 13. The learned Standing Counsel/Amicus Curiae representing the Ombudsman points out that there has been a subsequent amendment in the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act under which Section 36A has been ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 12 :- introduced. By Act 5 of 2007, the TCHRI Act has been amended and Sec.76A after amendment reads as follows: “76A. **Formation of Temple Advisory Committees.--** (1) A committee for each temple in the name “Temple Advisory Committee” (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. (2) The Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved bythe Board. (3) The composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice, prevailing, if any.” 14. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that steps are being initiated in accordance with law to prescribe the relevant rules. The procedure is already undertaken and at the earliest the requisite rules shall be in place, submits the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 13 :- respondent. In accordance with such rules, if such rules are framed by then or in the alternative in accordance with Ext.R1(a) the necessary Samithi shall be constituted at the earliest, submits the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. The learned Standing Counsel/amicus curiae for the Ombudsman points out that such rules have to be prescribed and the temple Advisory Committee in accordance with the amended Sec.76A will have to be constituted by the Board at the earliest. 15. What we intend to note is that continuance of the 2[nd] respondent as Samithy has already been approved by the Devaswom Board and the continuance is not on the sly or as camouflage. It is on the basis of Ext.R1(d) and Ext.R1(e) (order and agreement). In these circumstances, we accept the submissions made by the 1[st] respondent and do not deem it necessary to issue any specific directions. We also do not think it necessary to interfere with the functioning of the 2[nd] respondent as the Samithy now as the very order/agreement Ext.R1(d) and R1(e) were placed before the Devaswom Bench and the Devaswom Bench had not chosen to interfere with such functioning of the 2[nd] respondent under Ext.R1(d)/R1(e). ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 14 :- 16. It is, of course, brought to our notice that there is an unnumbered review petition pending in D.B.A.No.11/11 whereunder the arrangement of permitting the 2[nd] respondent to undertake the renovation and function as Samithy is questioned by certain parties. The review petition has not even been numbered and we do not, in these circumstances, think it necessary to refer to the pendency of that review petition in any further details in this judgment. Needless to say, appropriate orders can be sought from the Bench dealing with that review petition by the parties. 17. In this context, the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent submits that there is need to have a bye-law which will make the Samithy democratic in its approach and constitution. The learned counsel Sri. K. Ramachandran shall be satisfied if as in Ext.P5 there is a provision in Ext.R1(a) or in the rules to be framed hereafter under Sec.76A which would protect the character of the Samithy as a democratic body. It is of course for the Devaswom Board to consider this aspect when rules are framed in accordance with the amended Sec.76A. We do hope that the very existence of the temple Advisory ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 15 :- Committee (Samithi) as a representative democratic body shall be ensured when such provisions are effectively incorporated by promulgation of the Rules under Sec.76A. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent Devaswom submits that such rules must certainly get the approval of the Devaswom Bench before such rules are made finally acceptable. Suggestions regarding the proposed rules can be raised before the Devaswom Bench by any interested party then, submits the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board. We agree. 18. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the continuance of the 2[nd] respondent as the Samithi so long as they are undertaking the work of renovation is not in any way illegal and it is not necessary for this Court to issue any specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution now. We accept the submissions/undertakings made on behalf of the 1[st] respondent that as soon as the renovation is completed and the period of Ext.R1(d)/R1(e) comes to an end, the C.D.B. shall constitute a new Samithy/Advisory Committee in accordance with law. Needless to say, if there be any such failure on the part of the 1[st] respondent to put into effect this undertaking, the petitioner or ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 16 :- any one aggrieved shall be at liberty to approach this Court again. 19 **. Prayer No.2:** Ext.P3 order was passed by the Devaswom Bench as early as on 14/2/2011. The 2[nd] respondent herein was the 3[rd] respondent in that petition which led to Ext.P3 order. There were certain unsavory observations/comments against the 2[nd] respondent in that judgment. 20 **.** The 2[nd] respondent felt aggrieved by Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court and took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by Ext.P4 judgment had virtually reversed Ext.P3 order. There is a serious dispute between the parties as to how Ext.P4 judgment is to be understood and what in Ext.P3 survives even after Ext.P4 judgment of the Supreme Court. We think it appropriate to refer to the relevant observations in the three penultimate paragraphs of Ext.P4 judgment to clearly understand the nature of the disposal in Ext.P4: “We need not go into the primal question in view of the accepted position that with effect from 1.8.2001 the Board, on getting approval of the bye-laws, issued ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 17 :- a circular dissolving all the Devaswom samities in the various temples with effect from 1.8.2001 (i.e., after Ext.P5 herein) and consequently new advisory committees have been constituted. Above being the position, we feel that nothing further remains to be done in this appeal except noticing that certain observations made as regards the functioning of the appellant-society and its credibility were unnecessary. For the purpose of adjudication of the dispute before the High Court which only related to the permission granted to use Oottupura, other observations and views expressed by the Division Bench are, therefore, treated as inoperative, since disputed facts were involved, the High Court should not have gone into them even in respect of the primary grievances of the writ petitioner. With the aforesaid observations these appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs”. (emphasis supplied) **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 18 :- 21 **.** After Ext.P3 judgment was passed and before Ext.P4 judgment in appeal was rendered by the Supreme Court certain steps were taken by the Devaswom officials in pursuance of Ext.P3. Ext.P7 is one such notice issued. According to the petitioner, there has been contumacious inaction on the part of the 1[st] respondent to take further action in pursuance of Ext.P3. It is the contention of the petitioner that action under Ext.P3 is being withheld by the C.D.B. only to oblige the 2[nd] respondent Sangham. 22. The 2[nd] respondent, on the contrary, takes the stand that nothing in Ext.P3 survives for implementation. There were certain adverse observations against the 2[nd] respondent. This had obliged the 2[nd] respondent to take up the matter before the Supreme Court and it is accordingly that Ext.P4 judgment was pronounced. In these circumstances, any action taken in pursuance of Ext.P3 was bound to meet with its natural fate and that is that nothing further could be done in pursuance of Ext.P3. 23 **.** The learned Standing Counsel for the Board also accepts that though some steps were taken in pursuance of ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 19 :- Ext.P3, such action has not been pursued and continued after Ext.P4 judgment was pronounced. 24. The prayer now is that further action in pursuance of Ext.P3 may be ordered to be pursued. 25 **.** The general power of the 1[st] respondent/Devaswom Board to take action, if any necessary, against any erring organizations/Samithies notwithstanding, we are in perfect agreement with the stand taken by the 1[st] respondent and the 2[nd] respondent that in the light of Ext.P4 no specific action need be taken in pursuance of Ext.P3 judgment. That appears to us to be the irresistible conclusion in the light of the operative portion of Ext.P4 which we have already extracted above. 26. We may hasten to observe that such understanding of Exts.P3 and P4 cannot in any way persuade the 1[st] respondent/ C.D.B. or the officers of the Devaswom Board to close their eyes to any illegality/impropriety that has been perpetrated by the 2[nd] respondent Sangham. At the moment specific instances of any such contumacious conduct on the part of the 2[nd] respondent is not brought to our notice. We are only expressing the opinion by way of abundant caution that Ext.P4 judgment or Ext.R1(d) ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 20 :- order and Ext.R1(e) agreement cannot confer on the 2[nd] respondent Sangham any right to resort to any action beyond the overriding supervisory jurisdiction of the 1[st] respondent C.D.B. The Sangham cannot claim or enjoy any immunity for its action on the strength of Ext.P4 or Ext.R1(d)/R1(e). If there be any conduct on the part of the 2[nd] respondent that deserves action being taken by the 1[st] respondent in accordance with law, Ext.P4 or any other document shall not in any way stand against such action being taken by the 1[st] respondent. With the said clarification we come to the conclusion that under prayer No.2 also no specific directions deserve to be issued. 27 **. Prayer No.3:** The prayer is for a declaration that no organization or association of devotees can function in any temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board which is not constituted in accordance with Ext.P5 bye-law. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submits that the prayer is couched in too general words and no effective orders can be passed. It is brought to our notice that Ext.P5 does not any more validly exist in the eye of law. We will assume that prayer. Reference in that prayer is to Ext.R1(a) (and not Ext.P5). The learned counsel ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 21 :- for the 1[st] respondent places reliance on the decision in **Ramachandra Menon** (supra) and submits that the option of the 1[st] respondent/ Devaswom Board to constitute any number of Committees to effectively administer the temple is not in any way negated by Ext.P5 or Ext.R1(a). The learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent points out that in spite of the existence of Ext.R1(a), the exigencies of the situation demanded that the 1[st] respondent must enter into an agreement like Ext.R1(e) and issue an order like Ext.R1(d). The Devaswom Bench of this Court had accepted and given its approval to such an arrangement. In these circumstances, the prayer that no other organization/association of the devotees (other than the one constituted under Ext.P5/Ext.R1(a)) can function in any temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board would be inexpedient and unnecessary, contends counsel. The facts scenario in various temples under the Board are so different and it cannot be undertaken by the Board that no such organization or association of the devotees shall be permitted to function. If at all any one is so permitted to function, such permission shall be granted by the 1[st] respondent/Devaswom Board only in ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 22 :- accordance with law and the C.D.B. shall scrupulously ensure that the interests of the temple concerned and the deities are adequately protected, submits the learned Standing Counsel for the C.D.B. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the C.D.B. that such a general declaration as claimed in the 3[rd] prayer cannot be granted. Other such organizations or associations of the devotees which may come within the broad sweep and tenor of the prayer have not been made parties and we do not, in these circumstances, at all feel the necessity to issue any such general declaration as prayed for by the petitioner. **28** . Even in respect of the temple herein or the 2[nd] respondent we are of the opinion that in spite of Ext.R1(a), the arrangement in Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) does not warrant any interference from us and no declarations or directions are liable to be issued in accordance with the prayer made in prayer No.3 above. The said prayer cannot also, in these circumstances, be accepted. **29** . **Prayer No.4:** This prayer is again general and non- specific. The prayer is that no organization, association or Seva ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 23 :- Sangham be permitted to collect any funds from the general public or devotees in name of the deity in the temple attached to the Devaswom Board/1[st] respondent. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 point out that the prayer herein virtually negates Ext.P5 and Ext.R1(a). Under Ext.P5 and Ext.R1(a), duly constituted Samithies can be permitted to collect funds subject to strict supervision and monitoring by the 1[st] respondent. It is not as though only the Board and its officials can alone make the collections. Amounts come into the coffers of the concerned temple through such organizations which are approved by the 1[st] respondent/Devaswom Board in accordance with Ext.P5 or Ext.R1(a) etc. In these circumstances, a blanket prohibition that no organization must be permitted to collect any funds in any form from the general public or devotees will be nonproductive or even counter productive. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submits that it shall be ensured that no organization, association or Sanghams resort to such collection of amounts in the name of the deities in temples attached to the Devaswom Board without regulatory/control of the Devaswom Board. In the light of that undertaking, we are of the opinion ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 24 :- that no further specific directions need be issued under prayer No.4. If there be any non-compliance with this understanding and any individual or organization were permitted, without the requisite regulatory control of the C.D.B., to collect funds in the name of the deities, such specific instances can be brought to the notice of the Devaswom Bench and appropriate directions can be sought (as was done **In the matter of Audit Report of the T.D.B. for the year 1967-68 (Sabarimala Improvement Fund)** [AIR 1990 Kerala 27]. 30. It is not as though we are not aware of the danger and risk pointed out by the petitioner. All fund collection from the general public or devotees in the name of the deity in temple must certainly be overseen, supervised and monitored by the 1[st] respondent. It is not as though the 1[st] respondent can permit any organization to collect such funds. It is not as though the Devaswom Board can turn a blind eye to such illegal collection by any organization or association without the specific approval of the Devaswom Board. If there be any such unauthorized collections from the general public or devotees in the name of the deity of the temple, needless to say appropriate, effective ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 25 :- and deterrent action must be taken by the 1[st] respondent/Devaswom Board. That having been undertaken by the 1[st] respondent, we do not think it necessary to issue any such prohibition unrelated to specific acts. If there be any such specific instances, it will, of course, be open to any one to approach this Court and seek specific directions. 31 **. Prayer No.5:** We now come to the final prayer made. It is pointed out that the 2[nd] respondent Sangham has been making collections from members of the public and devotees. The grievance of the petitioner is that all such funds/accounts are not submitted to the Devaswom Board. They are not made available to the Devaswom Board for scrutiny. It is the admitted case of all concerned that there has been three specific and distinct periods in the life of the 2[nd] respondent. They started functioning even prior to 1975; but in 1975 they constituted themselves into a registered society under the TravancoreCochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. From 1975 to 2001 they were admittedly associating themselves actively with the activities of the temple. From 2001 to2007 i.e., between Ext.P3 to Ext.R1(d)/R1(e), in the light of the ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 26 :- adverse observations in Ext.P3, the 2[nd] respondent had not involved itself in the activities of the temple. After 2007 they have been actively associating themselves with the activities of the temple as required under Ext.R1(d)/R1(e). 32. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the assets of the 2[nd] respondent or its entire accounts have not been subjected to regulatory control and audit by the 1[st] respondent/ Devaswom Board. First of all it is submitted that at least after Ext.R1(d)/R1(e) there is great necessity of all the accounts of the 2[nd] respondent being audited by the Devaswom authorities. The internal audit by the Devaswom may be in sufficient and the accounts must be subjected to audit by the Local Fund Audit Wing attached to the Devaswom Board, argues the learned counsel for the petitioner. 33. The petitioner has one more serious objection to raise. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2[nd] respondent is admittedly maintaining two different accounts. One for activities which are described to be temple activities and the other for what is described as non-temple activities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least in so far ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 27 :- as the period after 2007 i.e., after Ext.R1(d)/R1(e) is concerned there is indisputable necessity to audit the accounts. The members of the public and every devotee contributing funds to the 2[nd] respondent Sangham (who is admittedly permitted to undertake renovation activities as also the function as the Samithy) does not bother to ascertain whether the contribution made by him is being accounted in the temple activities or nontemple activities of the 2[nd] respondent. In the interests of transparency and the interests of securing the monetary interests of the temple and the deity the entire account must be subjected to audit, argues the learned counsel for the petitioner. If there be no such effective control exercised by the Devaswom Board it is likely that it will be lead to misappropriation of funds to the detriment of the interests of the temple and the deity. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the learned Ombudsman (Mr. Justice K. Bhaskaran, Former Judge of this Court) in Ext.P10 has also expressed dissatisfaction that two such accounts are being maintained by the 2[nd] respondent. It is submitted that there is great necessity to ensure that the entire accounts of the 2[nd] respondent at least from 2007 is subjected to **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 28 :- audit. ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 29 :- 34. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2[nd] respondent Sangham has acquired a lot of assets including an elephant. These assets have been acquired by taking contributions from the public and devotees. Large amounts have thus been collected from the public and devotees. All such contributions/donations have been made/given by the public/devotees in the name or under the belief that such amounts would go to the benefit of the deity. It is alleged that conveniently the contributions have been described to be contributions received for the non-temple activities of the Sangham. Assets have been acquired including an elephant, using such funds. Such properties have not been dedicated to the temple or deity. They are being used and enjoyed as if they are private acquisitions in the non-temple activities account of the Sangham/2[nd] respondent. There is hence need to insist on a statement of all assets and properties of the Sangham, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The auditor/Ombudsman must be directed to examine the assets/properties and the Sangham must be directed to surrender/dedicate any assets which really belong to the temple and which now happen to be in ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 30 :- the hands of the Sangham/2[nd] respondent with the description that it is an asset acquired with funds collected in the nontemple account of the Sangham. 35. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the 2[nd] respondent has been maintaining meticulous accounts of all amounts received and spent by the 2[nd] respondent. It is a registered society. Under law, it is bound to maintain accounts. Accounts are being maintained properly. Accounts are audited every year by a competent Chartered Accountant. It is true that two accounts are being maintained. There is nothing clandestine or surreptitious in the maintenance of two accounts. One account relates to temple activities of the 2[nd] respondent Sangham. The other account is relating to nontemple activities of the Sangham. Such maintenance of the two separate accounts is authorised and justified by the bye-law and that practice has been going on from 1975 onwards. It is not as though there is any amount of secrecy in respect of either account of the 2[nd] respondent. The relevant provisions of the bye-laws are brought to the notice of this Court to impress upon the Court the fact that important functionaries of the ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 31 :- Devaswom Board are Ex-officio members of the Director Board of the 2[nd] respondent Sangham. The Devaswom Assistant Commissioner and the Devaswom Officer at the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple are Ex-officio members of the Committee. Thus they are aware of all the accounts maintained by the 2[nd] respondent Sangham. They do participate in the affairs of the Sangham also. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent emphasis this fact to bring to the notice of the Court that there is absolutely nothing secret or non- transparent in the functioning of the 2[nd] respondent Sangham. The learned counsel submits that the 2[nd] respondent used to follow the procedure of submitting accounts to the deity (in the presence of the deity) every day after `Athazha pooja Seeveli' before the closure of the temple. For certain reasons the 2[nd] respondent was not permitted to do the same after 2001. Such practice is not hence being followed after 2011. The 2[nd] respondent will continue such practice if this Court were to grant permission for the same and the 1[st] respondent and the petitioner would not object to such practice. 36. If the 2[nd] respondent wants to offer such accounts to the ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 32 :- deity, we fail to understand how the 1[st] respondent or the petitioner or any one can raise objection to that. To ensure purity in their accounts and transparency to a certain extent if the 2[nd] respondent were to submit the accounts to the deity, there can be no possibility of any one raising any objection. Of course, the practices of the temple cannot in any way be interrupted on that score. Nor can the mere submission of the accounts to the deity, as a measure of ensuring purity and probity by 2[nd] respondent Sangham, help them to claim any immunity from regulating scrutiny and audit of the accounts by the 1[st] respondent and the Devaswom Bench. 37. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submits that audited accounts for all these years both for the temple activities and non-temple activities have been scrupulously maintained by the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent is not liable to account its receipt and expenditure in respect of the non-temple account to any one and therefore such accounts have not been formally submitted to the Devaswom Board. The 2[nd] respondent does not want to make any secret of even such accounts. If the Court feels it necessary, the 2[nd] respondent ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 33 :- shall furnish to the 1[st] respondent/Board all audited accounts in respect of both the temple activities and the non-temple activities. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the 2[nd] the respondent is anxious to ensure that such submission of account to the 1[st] respondent is not exploited unnecessarily by persons interested against the 2[nd] respondent to bring disrepute to the 2[nd] respondent and its activities. If the Court so directs, the 2[nd] respondent shall happily make available to the 1[st] respondent or any other, all accounts of both temple and non-temple activities of the Sangham. The accounts can be made available to the learned Ombudsman or the Local Fund Auditor or the 1[st] respondent. A list of all properties and assets can also be submitted if the court so directs. This offer is being made only to show the purity of purpose of the 2[nd] respondent, submits the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 38. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accounts will have to be sujected to careful scrutiny. The list of assets/properties of the 2[nd] respondent must also be made available for perusal of the authorities. The authorities may be directed to go through the accounts and the list of properties and ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 34 :- take any action which may in accordance with law be found to be necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if after such perusal/audit of accounts and the list of properties if it is found that any property belonging rightfully to the temple is being retained illegally by the 2[nd] respondent, necessary action in accordance with law must be taken by the 1[st] respondent/ Board. 39. We have anxiously considered the submissions of both sides. At the moment and with the available inputs, we do not find any reason to suspect that the 2[nd] respondent has committed any misappropriation of funds/properties belonging to the temple. But that is only a prima facie impression and in the wake of the offer by the 2[nd] respondent to make all accounts and list of properties available for the perusal as directed by this Court, we are satisfied that in the interests of every one concerned appropriate directions can be issued in respect of this 5[th] prayer that is made. 40. We may hasten to observe that these directions under prayer No.5 are being issued not because the Court is in any way dissatisfied with the maintenance of accounts of the 2[nd] ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 35 :- respondent; but in the light of the offer made by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent in response to the suggestions by this Court that in the interests of transparency and purity of the functioning of the 2[nd] respondent, such accounts ought to be made available for perusal of the 1[st] respondent. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that appropriate directions can be issued. 41. To sum up, we are satisfied that in the light of the observations made above no specific directions need be issued in respect of the prayers 1 to 4. This petition deserves to be allowed and the following directions deserve to be issued in respect of prayer No.5. We do so. (i) We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent that all the accounts of respondent No.2 with respect to temple and non-temple accounts for the period 2007 onwards maintained by the 2[nd] respondent as also the list of all assets/properties of the 2[nd] respondent shall be made available to the 1[st] respondent for perusal. (ii) Such accounts and list shall be made available within a period of two months from this date. ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 36 :- (iii) On receipt of such accounts, the 1[st] respondent shall get the same audited by the Local Fund Audit attached to the Cochin Devaswdom Board. Any one interested will be entitled to make appropriate submissions and raise appropriate objections in the course of such audit. The Local Fund Auditor shall submit a report to the learned Ombudsman. (iv) The learned Ombudsman on receipt of such report of the Local Fund Auditor and after collecting such further materials as the learned Ombudsman may think necessary and after giving opportunity for any of the interested parties to make appropriate submissions shall submit a report to the Devaswom Bench of this Court conveying the opinion of the learned Ombudsman on further action, if any, that is to be taken. Needless to say, the learned Ombudsman shall be at liberty to give appropriate recommendations to the Devaswom Board from time to time regarding the items of properties/assets of the 2[nd] respondent if the learned Ombudsman feels that any such directions are necessary. We make it clear that though we have only directed the audit of the accounts for the period 2007 onwards, the Local Fund Auditor and the Ombudsman shall be at ## **W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011** -: 37 :- liberty to seek any clarification in respect of the pre 2007 period also to ascertain whether any items of property (including the elephant) really belongs to the temple or not. 42. Such report of the Ombudsman shall be placed before the regular Devaswom Bench for appropriate further directions. 43. The Registry shall hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Ombudsman. 44. This original petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- **R. BASANT (Judge)** **Sd/-** **M.C. HARI RANI (Judge)** ## **jsr/Nan** **//true copy// P.S. to Judge**