V.K. Raveendran & Others v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934** **WP(C).No. 4455 of 2012 (F) --------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **1. V.K.RAVEENDRAN, ARCHANA, THEKKANKUTTOOR P.O., KALPAKANCHERRY MALAPPURAM-676 551.** **2. T.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THEEYADATH HOUSE, KURUMBATHOOR P.O., THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM-678 301.** **3. MANIKANDAN, VARIPPADATH HOUSE, VAIRANKODE P.O., THIRUNAVAYA MALAPPURAM-678 301.** **BY ADVS.SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR SRI.K.G.JITHU JAGANNATH.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KOZHIKODE-673 006.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE-673006.** **3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (DEVASWOMS) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001.** **4. SATHEESH KUMAR E., ERANDATH HOUSE, CODACKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 108.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC,MALABAR DEVA R3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL.** **R4 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN.(SR) SRI.S.SUJIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 4455 of 2012 (F)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'EXHIBITS :-** |**EXT.P1**|**:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J7-5907/07 MDB**| |---|---|---| |||**DATED 1/3/2011 OF SREE VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM.**| |**EXT.P2**|**:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8991/2011 OF THIS**| |||**HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXT.P3**|**:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE RP.16/2011 FILED BY THE 4TH**| |||**RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P4**|**:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2011 PASSED BY THE**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT IN RP.16/2011.**| |**EXT.P5**|**:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF UNNUMBERED REVISION PETITION FILED BY**| |||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P6**|**:**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT)NO.712/2012/RD DATED**| |||**10/2/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **amk** ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.** ----------------------------------W.P(C).No.4455 of 2012 -----------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of August, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.This matter relates to Sree Vairamkode Bhagavathy Temple, Thirunavaya. Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB) authorities invited applications, conducted selection and appointed three persons as non-hereditary trustees against three vacancies. The notifications inviting applications which led to that selection and appointment was subject matter of W.P (C).Nos.8991/11 and 10112/11, which were decided by this Court as per judgment dated 18.11.2011 since reported as **Satheeshkumar** v. **Malabar Devaswom Board** [2011 (4) KLT 921]. - 2.As can be seen from paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment, the question whether the selected persons are WPC.4455/12 2 ineligible to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees as they, either do not possess the qualification prescribed or are disqualified in terms of the notification and other relevant laws were left open. All other contentions stood over-ruled. It was then noticed that the pointed allegation is that the persons selected and appointed are members or active workers of political parties and are persons who do not have faith in temple worship. Though those persons had filed counter affidavit denying the allegations against them in that writ petitions, it was noted that it was a matter within the purview of the Commissioner or the MDB in the event of it being shown that the persons selected and appointed do not conform to the standards in terms of that notifications. Any specific complaint about any of the appointed persons in that regard was left open to be brought to the notice of the Commissioner for decision. Following that, Ext.P3 complaint was made to the Commissioner by the 4[th] respondent herein, alleging that the appointed persons are incompetent to be trustees as they are disqualified on WPC.4455/12 3 account of being active political workers. The Commissioner, MDB repelled that and issued Ext.P4 dismissing that revision and thereby upholding the appointment of the said three persons as non-hereditary trustees. This was challenged before the Government in Ext.P5 revision. The Government interfered with the decision of the Commissioner and set aside the selection and appointment. The Commissioner was directed to initiate proceedings afresh for appointment of trustees. That order of the Government, Ext.P6, is impugned in this writ petition. - 3.A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4[th] respondent who initiated proceedings before the Commissioner and the Government. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent Government. - 4.Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the Government exercised its jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, WPC.4455/12 4 hereinafter, the 'Act', and that the revisional power has been exercised without any material showing that the three selected and appointed persons, the writ petitioners, were disqualified. It is also pointed out that the Government erred in clubbing up another revision petition filed by one Bhaskaran Nedumthadi and four others without notice to the writ petitioners. 5.Learned senior counsel for the 4[th] respondent argued that the findings arrived at by the Government in exercise of revisional power are unassailable going by the files and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted at or before the point of time when the selection and appointments were made, to decide on issues which are relevant before a person is admitted as a non-hereditary trustee of a temple. Learned senior Government Pleader made reference to the statement filed on behalf of the Government to point out that the Government's order is one issued in the best interest of the religious institution concerned. WPC.4455/12 5 - 6.At the outset, it is worthwhile to recall that the Full Bench of this Court had specifically considered the scope and ambit of Section 99 of the Act in **Achuthan Pillai** v. **State of Kerala** [1970 KLT 838 (FB)]. It was noted that the preponderance of precedents support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of Government and that the Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. Making reference to **Commissioner, HRD** v. **L.T. Swamiar** [AIR 1954 SC 282], it was noted that although India is today a secular State, “that would not preclude the secular administration of religious institutions”. - 7.In terms of the judgments and orders issued by this Court earlier in different Devaswom matters, the Commissioner was obliged to ensure that active political workers and those who are office bearers of political parties are not appointed as non-hereditary trustees. This prescription was included WPC.4455/12 6 in the notification on the basis of which the selection is made. 8.While the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is justified in saying that the only question left open after Ext.P2 judgment was qualifications/disqualifications of the persons selected and appointed, it needs to be noted that what stands concluded as per Ext.P2 is only the correctness of the issuance of the notification inviting applications to fill the post of the non-hereditary trustees. Though what was specifically left open was the question as to whether the appointed persons possessed the prescribed qualification or any of them had incurred any disqualification, this Court had not pronounced on the correctness of the procedure adopted after the invitation of the applications. Now, reverting to Ext.P4 order issued by the Commissioner, it can be seen that when the qualifications and disqualifications relating to the persons concerned were the moot issue that arose for decision, the selected persons (writ petitioners) did not WPC.4455/12 7 specifically state anything about the allegations levelled against them. None of them, going by Ext.P4, is shown to have asserted that he is not an active political worker of office bearer of any political party. It is worthwhile to note paragraph 9 of Ext.P4, wherein, the Commissioner noted that as per the guidelines, persons who are actively involved in politics and those who are office bearers of political parties need not be considered for appointment ordinarily. Though the Commissioner used the word 'ordinarily' in that paragraph, the guidelines did not contain any exception for any extraordinary circumstance. The second sentence in paragraph 9 of Ext.P4 shows that the application form and the inspection report, contained nothing to show that the appointed persons are active members of a political party and it is impossible to know from the files as to how the comparative merits and demerits of the applicants were assessed. The Commissioner had noted that the files did not discuss such an assessment based on the details furnished WPC.4455/12 8 by the applicants and the inspection report for the purpose of selection of non-hereditary trustees. 9. Now, looking at the impugned order Ext.P6 issued by the Government, it can be seen that it was clearly concluded on the basis of the materials that the Assistant Commissioner who made a report in connection with the selection, forwarded the report recommending the three persons on the same day on which he conducted the interview, i.e., on 25.2.2011. The Government noted that the Assistant Commissioner did not care to make even a feeble attempt to detect whether there was any truth in the allegation. The Government has taken the view that the Assistant Commissioner should have definitely conducted local enquiry before hurriedly forwarding the report of 25.2.2011. The Government also found that the application for postponing the interview even on medical grounds were rejected summarily without recording any valid reason for rejection. It is in the context of these findings of the WPC.4455/12 9 Government, that, the failure of the writ petitions to take specific stand before the Commissioner and the Government regarding their political affiliations, if any, gains abundant importance. Whether any among the writ petitioners is an active political worker or is an office bearer of any political party is the fact which, in the first instance, is known to each of them. Disclosure of such a fact and availability of such a fact to the knowledge of the person making the selection is sine qua non to conclude as to whether the person had incurred any disqualification. In the absence of any material, the failure of the Assistant Commissioner to inquire into those aspects was obviously against the interest of the institution. The Government having also found that the selection process, on and from the interview, was not properly conducted also adds to the failure of the Assistant Commissioner in appropriately carrying out the selection process. WPC.4455/12 10 10.In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the power under Section 99 of the Act has been rightly exercised by the Government. We do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order or in the Government having ordered selection de novo. In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge. Sd/- ## C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge. kkb.