T. Sasidharan and others v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.AJITHKUMAR`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.36114 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 T.SASIDHARAN, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, THOTTANCHERY HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE680 651.`** - **`2 C.K. GIRISH, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, CHIRAPPURATH, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE680 651.`** - **`3 RAMACHANDRAN K., S/O. SANKARAKUTTY NAIR, KACHERY HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE680 651.`** - **`4 GOPINATHAN,`** - **`S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, VELLOOR, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE- 680 651.`** - **`5 UDAYAKUMAR H., S/O. HARIHARA SUBRAMANIYA IYER, VRINDAVAN NIVAS, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE- 680 651.`** - **`6 JAYASURYAN C.P., S/O. PARAMESWARAN, CHERIYAKATHU, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE- 680 651.`** - **`7 SASIDHARA KURUP T., S/O. NARAYANA KURUP, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE680 651.`** 2 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 - **`8 SOMAN N.B., S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, NADUKKAROTTU, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE- 680 651.`** ``` BY ADVS. K.S.BABU N.SUDHA BABU SHANKAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, G6H7+2VW, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001 REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.`** - **`2 THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, G6H7+2VW, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001.`** - **`3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ESTATE), OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, G6H7 + 2VW, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001.`** - **`4 DEVASWOM OFFICER, THANIKKUDAM DEVASWOM, H7F5+GG6, THANIKKUDAM, KURICHIKKARA P.O., MACHAD THANIKUDAM ROAD, THRISSUR-680631.`** - **`5 ADDL.R5 MOHANDAS U., S/O. KUNJU NAIR, KACHERY HOUSE, MATHRUKA STREET, NETTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR, PINCODE680651.`** - **`6 ADDL.R6. K.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, KURUPPATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PINCODE-680651.`** - **`7 ADDL.R7.T.RAMACHANDRAN, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR, PINCODE-680651.`** - **`8 ADDL. R8.M.R.RENJITH, MULLACKAL HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY,`** 3 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ## **`THRISSUR, PINCODE-680651.`** - **`9 ADDL. R9.SAREESH E., S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, EDAYAPURATH HOUSE, SASTHA ROAD, NETTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR, PINCODE-680651.`** - **`10 ADDL. R10.LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, CHERIYAKATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY.P.O., THRISSUR, PINCODE-680651. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19-12-2022 IN IA 1/2022).`** - **`11 ADDL.R11.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR,PIN-680651 (SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2022)`** ``` BY ADVS. K.P. SUDHEER ADVOCATE SUBRAMANYAN P B GOVIND G. NAIR BALU TOM P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994) SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998) MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013) ABRAHAM BABU KALLIVAYALIL(K/1663/2020) ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SRI S.RAJMOHAN – SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are the members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Temple of Thanikkudam Devaswom, which is under the management of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 notice dated 14.10.2022 of the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer, Thanikkudam Devaswom, whereby the 1[st] petitioner, who was the President of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee was required to hand over the records, documents and assets of the said committee to the newly elected Temple Advisory Committee, in the presence of the Devaswom Officer; and Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board constituting a new Temple Advisory Committee in Nettissery Sivasastha Temple, in terms of the provisions under Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to elect a new Temple Advisory Committee in the general body meeting to be conducted and to nominate at least three members of the 5 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee, in order to safeguard the conduct of the legal proceedings in which the members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee are the petitioners; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reimburse the expenses incurred by the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee for the renovation of the temple and for conducting the cases. 2. On 11.11.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 4. 3. On 01.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court noticed that though the main relief sought for in the writ petition is a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2 and P10, none of the newly elected members of the Temple Advisory Committee, which is granted approval by Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022, has been made parties to this writ petition. 4. On 06.12.2022, when I.A.No.1 of 2022, the application filed by the petitioner seeking an order to implead the members of the newly elected Temple Advisory Committee 6 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 as additional respondents 5 to 10 came up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads thus; “The petitioners, who were the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Shivasastha Temple at Thanikkudam, which is under the management of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 14.10.2022 of 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer and Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022 of 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. They have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to elect a new Temple Advisory Committee in the General Body Meeting to be conducted and to nominate at least three members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee to safeguard the conduct of legal proceedings in which the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee members are the petitioners. The further relief sought for is an order directing the respondents to reimburse the expense incurred by the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee for the renovation of temple and for conducting cases. 2. The question as to whether such reliefs can be sought for by the members of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under the provisions of Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, requires consideration in this writ petition, as a preliminary issue. 3. Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is one issued by the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board constituting a Temple 7 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 Advisory Committee for Nettissery Temple, with 21 members, which includes two ex-officio members. None of those persons are made parties to this writ petition. 4. As per Rule 148 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, which deals with addition of parties, all persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the Original Petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct. ## 5. The scope of Rule 148 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala was explained by this Court in **Karassery Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (5) KHC SN 21]** . 6. In view of the provisions under Rule 148 and also the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, the writ petitioners ought not to have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order, without the affected parties in the party array. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to additional respondents 5 to 10 sought to be impleaded. The maintainability of this writ petition will be decided with notice to the additional respondents sought to be impleaded. 8. There are instances of filing writ petitions seeking reliefs in respect of Devaswom lands, without the concerned Devaswom in the party array. One such issue is pending 8 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 consideration before this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.19921 of 2021 and 26610 of 2021. In those cases, W.P.(C)No.26610 of 2021 was filed, without the Cochin Devaswom Board or the concerned Devaswom Officer in the party array, during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.19921 of 2021 before the Devaswom Bench. 9. Issue notice to the additional respondents sought to be impleaded through the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board to furnish the email ID of the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer, today itself. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners to furnish a scanned copy of the writ petition and also the application for impleadment to Registry today itself.” 5. In the order dated 06.12.2022 it was made clear that the question as to whether the reliefs sought for in this writ petition can be sought in a writ petition filed by the members of a Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act requires consideration as a preliminary issue, with notice to additional respondents 5 to 10. 6. On 14.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, on a query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the former Temple Advisory Committee was continuing from 06.02.2011 onwards with the 9 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 very same members. In the order dated 14.12.2022, this Court noticed that Ext.P2 notice is one issued by the 4[th] respondent Devaswom officer, whereby, the 1[st] petitioner is required to submit the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee for the year 2021-22. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee for the previous years have already been submitted before the Devaswom Officer. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. 7. On 19.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court file No.A5-7902/2022 maintained by the Board in respect of Thanikkudam Devaswom. The said file contained a letter dated 13.12.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur, which is addressed to the Devaswom Commissioner. As discernible from the said letter, on 09.12.2022, the Assistant Commissioner (Valuables) along with officers of the Vigilance Wing of the Cochin Devaswom Board conducted inspection in the office of the Temple Advisory Committee and prepared 10 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 inventories. In the said inspection, it was revealed that the Temple Advisory Committee was conducting a Chit in the name and style, ‘Temple Development’ by collecting money from Public. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the additional 7[th] respondent pointed out registration of crimes, i.e., Crime Nos.196 of 2021, 197 of 2021, 198 of 2021, 238 of 2021 and 239 of 2021 of Mannuthy Police Station against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid chit business. It was also pointed out that the petitioners, who were continuing as members of the Temple Advisory Committee from the year 2011 onwards, have filed this writ petition, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. The audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee from the year 2011 onwards are yet to be submitted by the petitioners. 8. On 21.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners handed over a photocopy of passbook of one Muraleedharan, Thazhathu Valapil, who is assigned with Sl.No.E.58 in “Nettissery Sivasastha Kshethra Development Committee Weekly Investment Scheme”. On a query made by this Court, the 11 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Cochin Devaswom Board has permitted the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Kshethram to conduct ‘Weekly Deposit Scheme’ using the name of the deity. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. By the order dated 21.12.2022 this Court _suo motu_ impleaded the Station House Officer, Mannuthy Police Station as the additional 11[th] respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the additional 11[th] respondent on the present status of Crime Nos.196 of 2021, 197 of 2021, 198 of 2021, 238 of 2021 and 239 of 2021 of Mannuthy Police Station. Registry was directed to keep the document handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in safe custody with the Registrar (Judicial). The learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to serve a copy of that document to the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior Government Pleader. 9. The 1[st] respondent cochin Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.12.2022 producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(k). The additional 9[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 02.01.2023, producing therewith 12 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 Exts.R9(a) to R9(l). The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 19.01.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, producing therewith Exts.P15 to P16(b) documents. The petitioners have also filed another reply affidavit dated 19.01.2023 to the counter affidavit dated 06.01.2023 filed by the additional 9[th] respondent producing therewith Exts.P17 to P19. 10. The additional 7[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 08.02.2023 producing therewith Exts.R7(a) to R7(h) documents. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 03.03.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by the additional 7[th] respondent, producing therewith Ext.P20 document. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4, the learned Government Pleader for the additional 11[th] respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 9[th] respondent, the learned counsel for the additional 7[th] respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 5, 6, 8 and 10. 12. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, 13 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ## supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in subsection (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. 13. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by 14 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub-section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be met from the said fund. 14. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are 15 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees. 15. Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act deals with formation of Temple Advisory Committee in temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 76A, 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. As per sub-section (2) of Section 76A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 76A, the composition of a Temple 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. In terms of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 76A, the Cochin Devaswom Board has framed the rules (bye-laws) regarding formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under its management. 16. In **Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KHC 663]** in the 16 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 context of the provision under Section 31A of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which deals with constitution of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, this Court held as follows: “59. As already noticed, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (2) and Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act. The term of the Temple Advisory Committee is two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner, who has the authority to extend the term by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board has the power to extend the term by a further period of one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. In view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. In view of the prohibition contained in clause (18), a person, who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee is not eligible to continue as such, continuously exceeding the term of two Committees. Respondents 6 to 10 were in the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years from 13.03.2017 till 12.03.2021. As held by this Court in **Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2021 (3) KHC 379]** the power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be exercised as a matter of course. The Devaswom Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall call for 17 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 a report regarding the developmental works going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple and apply its mind to the materials and take a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not.” 17. The provision under Section 76A of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act deals with constitution of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board. The composition of the Temple Advisory Committee is governed by the provisions contained in the rules framed by the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-Section (3) of Section 76A of the Act. Clause 13 of the said rules (bye law) deals with term of the Temple Advisory Committee. A reading of the said provision would make it clear that the law laid down by this Court in **Sunil Kumar C [2022** **(4) KHC 663]** in the context of Section 31A of the Act will have application with equal force in the matter of constitution of Temple Advisory Committees under Section 76A of the said Act, in temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board. 18. In the instant case, as stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the former Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Temple of Thanikkudam Devaswom in which the petitioners were members was continuing from 18 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 06.02.2011 onwards with the very same members. On 14.12.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Temple Advisory Committee with the very same members continued from 06.02.2011 till Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board, whereby a new Temple Advisory Committee was constituted. By Ext.P2 notice dated 26.10.2022 of the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer, the 1[st] petitioner was required to submit the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee for the year 2021-22. In the order dated 14.12.2022, this Court noticed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, that the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee for the previous years have already been submitted before the Devaswom Officer. On 19.12.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board pointed out that the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee from the year 2011 onwards are yet to be submitted by the petitioners. 19. File No.A5-7902/2022 maintained by the 1[st] respondent Board in respect of Thanikkudam Devaswom, which was made available for the perusal of this Court on 19.12.2022 by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board 19 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 contained a letter dated 13.12.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur, which was one addressed to the Devaswom Commissioner. As per that letter, on 09.12.2022, the Assistant Commissioner (Valuables) along with officers of the Vigilance Wing of the Cochin Devaswom Board conducted inspection in the office of the Temple Advisory Committee and prepared inventories. In the said inspection, it was revealed that the Temple Advisory Committee was conducting a Chit in the name and style, ‘Temple Development’ by collecting money from the public. 20. On 19.12.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the additional 7[th] respondent pointed out Crime Nos.196 of 2021, 197 of 2021, 198 of 2021, 238 of 2021 and 239 of 2021 of Mannuthy Police Station registered against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid chit business. It was also pointed out that the petitioners, who were continuing as members of the Temple Advisory Committee from the year 2011 onwards, have filed this writ petition, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court. 21. On 21.12.2022, the learned counsel for the 20 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 petitioners handed over a photocopy of the passbook of one Muraleedharan, Thazhathu Valapil, who is assigned with Sl.No.E.58 in “Nettissery Sivasastha Kshethra Development Committee Weekly Investment Scheme”. In the order dated 21.12.2022, this Court noticed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Cochin Devaswom Board has permitted the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Kshethram to conduct ‘Weekly Deposit Scheme’ using the name of the deity. 22. Admittedly, the petitioners were continuing as members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Temple of Thannikudam Devaswom from 06.02.2011 onwards, till a new Temple Advisory Committee was constituted by Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board. The erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee in which the petitioners were members have not submitted audited accounts from the year 2011 onwards. The said fact was even suppressed in the present writ petition. It has also come out that the petitioners were conducting chit business (Weekly Deposit Scheme) in the temple, using the name of the deity, by collecting money from the devotees. Various crimes have 21 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 already been registered in Mannuthy Police Station against the petitioners in connection with that chit business. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have settled some of those cases by making payment to the respective devotees. 23. The petitioners who have misused their position as members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Temple of Thannikudam Devaswom, who have not even submitted the audited accounts of the said Committee from the year 2011 onwards, have no legal right to challenge Ext.P2 notice dated 14.10.2022 issued by the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer whereby the 1[st] petitioner, who was the President of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee was required to handover the records, documents and assets of the said Committee to the newly elected Committee, in the presence of the 4[th] respondent Devaswom Officer. Since the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee in which the petitioners were the members is yet to submit audited accounts from the year 2011 onwards, it is for the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 22 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 petitioners, in accordance with law, for the default in submitting audited accounts. 24. The petitioners who were continuing as members of the Temple Advisory Committee from the year 2011 onwards, who have defaulted submission of audited accounts of the said committee for the last 11 years, who have even conducted chit business (Weekly Deposit Scheme) in the temple, using the name of the deity, collecting money from the devotees, cannot be permitted to continue as members of the Temple Advisory Committee. They have also no legal right to challenge Ext.P10 order dated 20.08.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board constituting a new Temple Advisory Committee in terms of the provisions under Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, by contending that atleast three members of the erstwhile committee which was holding office from 06.02.2011 onwards have to be nominated in the newly elected Committee. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the intention of the petitioners in seeking the aforesaid relief is only to see that the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the devotees are settled, by misusing their position as members of the Temple Advisory Committee. 23 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 25. Another relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the Board to reimburse the expenses incurred by the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee for renovation of the temple and for conducting cases. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the judgment dated 03.07.2017 in W.P.(C)No.29252 of 2016, which would show that that writ petition was one filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board and not by the Temple Advisory Committee or its members. ## 26. In **Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC** **145]** , a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 27. In **Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain** 24 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 **[(2008) 2 SCC 280]** the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 28. **In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the 25 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 29. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 30. The petitioners have no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials to elect a new Temple Advisory Committee by nominating at least three members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee or a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Board to reimburse the expenses alleged to have been incured by the said commitee for renovation of the temple or for conducting cases, since no mandamus can be issued to direct the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to refrain from enforcing the provisions of the statute or the bye-laws or 26 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 to do something which is contrary to law. 31. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in **R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486]** , an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 32. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India** **[(2007) 8 SCC 449]** the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, 27 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 33. In **Prestige Lights Limited** the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. In the instant case, the petitioners have stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee for the period 2011-12 and the subsequent years have already been audited. However, they could not produce the annual reports and other documents, since the office of the Temple Advisory Committee is under the lock and key of the 4[th] respondent Devaswom officer. During the course of arguments, it has come out that the petitioners have not submitted the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory 28 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 Committee from the year 2011-12 onwards and that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on 14.12.2022, on instructions, that the audited accounts of the said committee for the previous years have already been filed, is factually incorrect. Therefore, the petitioners, who have invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court, are not legally entitled for any relief in this writ petition. 35. In respect of chit business (Weekly Deposit Scheme) conducted by the petitioners, who were the members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee, the Police have registered Crime Nos.196 of 2021, 197 of 2021, 198 of 2021, 238 of 2021 and 239 of 2021 of Mannuthy Police Station. It is for the Police to proceed with those crimes in accordance with law. The 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board shall take necessary steps to prevent such activities by the members of the Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under its management, by taking stern action against such persons. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed for the reasons stated hereinbefore. It is for the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 29 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 petitioners, in accordance with law, for their default in submitting the audited accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee of Nettissery Sivasastha Temple of Thanikudam Devaswom. The Police shall proceed with the crimes referred to hereinbefore, registered against the petitioners, in accordance with law. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN 30 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36114/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW FRAMED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ``` ``` Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 14.10.2022 SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 26.10.2022. ``` ``` Exhibit P3 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.10.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.04.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE SIVASASTHA TEMPLE, NETTISSERY. ``` ``` Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY HAND TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 21.04.2022. ``` ``` Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.05.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE TEMPLE. ``` ``` Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.07.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE TEMPLE. ``` ``` Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ERSTWHILE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT/SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY REGISTERED POST. ``` ``` Exhibit P9 ``` ``` THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF POSTAL ``` 31 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ``` RECEIPT. ``` ``` Exhibit P9 A THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. ``` - **`Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.7902/2022 DATED 20.08.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ERSTWHILE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.`** - **`Exhibit P12`** - **`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.10.2022 SENT BY T.SASIDHARAN, PRESIDENT OF THE ERSTWHILE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.`** - **`Exhibit P13 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT.`** - **`Exhibit P14`** - **`THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. L- 6571-11 DATED 11.11.16 OF THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.`** ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** - **`EXHIBIT R1 ( a ) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.M1-8264/16 DATED 17.6.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.`** - **`EXHIBIT R1 ( b )`** ``` TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 6813/17 DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` - **`EXHIBIT R1 ( c ) TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT R1 ( d ) TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO. MI 5382/18 DATED 12.7.2022 FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.`** 32 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ``` EXHIBIT R1 ( e ) TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY GIREESH C.K. AND 7 OTHERS TO THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1 ( f ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5-7902/22 DATED 23.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT R1 ( g ) TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NETTISSERY SHIVA KSHETHRA UPADESHAKA SAMITHI TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 1.11.2022. EXHIBIT R1 ( h ) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A5-7902/22 DATED 4.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R1 ( i ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5-7902/2022 DATED 08.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R1( j ) TRUE COPY OF THE INVENTORY PREPARED ON 9.12.2022. EXHIBIT R1 ( k ) TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO. M1. 4187/17 DATED 13.12.2022 FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT R9(a) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE YEAR 2016. EXHIBIT R9(b) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE YEAR 2017. EXHIBIT R9(c) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE YEAR 2018. EXHIBIT R9(d) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE YEAR 2019. EXHIBIT R9(e) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.04.2020 TO THE TEMPLE ADVISORY ``` 33 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ``` COMMITTEE. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R9(f) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LIST OF THE AMOUNTS DISBURSED TO THE THEN COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD. ``` - **`EXHIBIT R9(g)`** ``` PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE BOARD DATED 29.04.2022. ``` - **`EXHIBIT R9(h) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED 16.06.2019.`** - **`EXHIBIT R9(i) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM OFFICER TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 14.06.2022.`** - **`EXHIBIT R9(j)`** ``` PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED 04.11.2022. ``` - **`EXHIBIT R9(k) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2022.`** - **`EXHIBIT R9(l) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE THEN SAMITHI TO A DEVOTEE DATED 15.11.2022.`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 09.O2.2O22 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT CONSTITUTING THE POORAM CELEBRATION COMMITTEE OF NETTISSERY TEMPLE ``` - **`EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3905/ 12 DATED 19.09.2014 ISSUED FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT P19`** ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.M1-8273/04 DATED 30.11.2004 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` Ext.R7(a) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED ``` 34 W.P.(C)No.36114 of 2022 ``` 02-04-2020 ``` ``` EXT.R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14-06-2022 EXT.R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5.7902/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD, DATED 4- 11-2022 ``` ``` Ext.R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 13-12- 2022 EXT.R7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE THEN COMMITTEE DATED 15-04-2017 EXT.R7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXT.R7(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DATED 17-6-2017 EXT.R7(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-6813/17 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD, DATED 27- 10-2017 ``` ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P20 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ```