W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022

W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 1 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 23085 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** - **`1 MANOJ BHASKAR V., AGED 45 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN V., DEVI VIHAR, KURUMAL, VELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN: 680 601.`** - **`2 MURALI P., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.K.POOLAN PILLAI, INDU, TEMPLE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN: 680020`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` I.SHEELA DEVI PRADEEP BABU P.D. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 001.`** - **`2 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 001.`** - **`3 THE MANAGER, VADAKKUMNATHAN DEVASWOM, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN: 680 001.`** - **`4 PANKAJAKSHAN, PRESIDENT, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY THRISSUR COMMITTEE, VADAKKAUMNATHAN TEMPLE,`** W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 2 ``` THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN: 680 001 (NEWLY NOMINATED). ``` - **`5 T.R.HARIHARAN, SECRETARY, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKAUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, DISTRICT, PIN: 680 001 (NEWLY NOMINATED). THRISSUR`** - **`6 ABHILASH, VICE PRESIDENT, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY THRISSUR COMMITTEE, VADAKKAUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, DISTRICT, PIN: 680 001 (NEWLY NOMINATED).`** ``` 7 RAMAKRISHNAN, TREASURER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 (NEWLY NOMINATED). ``` - **`*ADDL R8 KRISHNAKUMAR R, COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001.`** - **`*ADDL R9 KRISHNAKUMAR A.R., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001.`** ``` *ADDL R10 PRAMOD T.N., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R11 ARUN P.V., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R12 SASIDHARAN P., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R13 MADHAVAN K., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, ``` W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 3 ``` THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R14 SREEKUMAR, COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R15 RAGHUNATH M.G., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R16 PRAKASH K. VARRIAR, COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` - **`*ADDL R17 KESAVADAS K., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001.`** - **`*ADDL R18 ANILKUMAR A., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001.`** ``` *ADDL R19 RAMAKRISHNAN A., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R20 SUBHASH P.S., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R21 MANOJ S., COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R22 JYOTHI PRAKASAN, COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, ``` W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 4 ``` THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *ADDL R23 BALASUBRAHMANIAN, COMMITTEE MEMBER, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN : 680 001. ``` ``` *(ADLL R8 TO R23 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/06/2023 IN IA 1/23 IN WP(C)) ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.P.SUDHEER ADVOCATE P.B.KRISHNAN SUBRAMANYAN P B BINOY VASUDEVAN SABU GEORGE MANU VYASAN PETER SREEJITH SREENATH(K/000508/2018) RINCY KHADER(K/733/2006) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 5 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are devotees of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, granting approval to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, which was formed by way of nomination, since there was no consensus among the members of the registered mandalam, in the general body held on 20.06.2022. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to continue with the day to day activities of the temple, till the completion of election; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to elect a new Temple Advisory Committee for Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the term of the last Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, which took charge on 15.10.2018 continued till 20.06.2022. Against the continuance of the very same committee, beyond the W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 6 term of two years provided in the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. A devotee by name K.B.Sumodh approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.6551 of 2022, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 22.03.2022, whereby the 3[rd] respondent Manager of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom was directed to convene a general meeting of the registered devotees, in order to conduct election to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, as per the requirements of the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Act, within a period of two months. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, in violation of the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment, no general body was convened and respondents 4 to 7 were nominated as members of the Temple Advisory Committee. The 5[th] respondent was an accused in a criminal case, which was compounded. Therefore, a new Temple Advisory Committee has to be elected, in the place of the Temple Advisory Committee, which was granted approval by Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 7 3. On 18.07.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board entered appearance for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 7, returnable by 20.07.2022. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board. 4. On 29.07.2022, 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, the applications made by respondents 4 to 7 for membership in the registered mandalam for being elected as members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple. 5. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, an application to implead the elected members of the Temple Advisory Committee, as additional respondents 8 to 23. That application was allowed by the order dated 23.06.2023, which reads thus: W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 8 “This is an application filed by the writ petitioners, seeking an order to implead the members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple as additional respondents 8 to 23. The writ petition is one filed by the petitioners, who are the devotees of Lord Vadakkumnathan of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, which is under the management of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 of the Board whereby approval has been granted for the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, consisting of the additional respondents sought to be impleaded. Though this interlocutory application is one filed on 23.12.2022, service of notice is not complete on the additional respondents sought to be impleaded. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel who entered appearance for additional respondents 8 to 20 on 06.06.2023, would point out that unless this interlocutory application is allowed, Registry will not accept the vakalath for those respondents. The learned counsel would also submit that unless the said persons are impleaded as additional respondents, he may not be able to file counter affidavit of those persons. Service of notice is not complete on respondents 21 and 22. The notice issued to 21[st] respondent returned with an endorsement ‘no such addressee’ and that issue to 22[nd] respondent returned with an endorsement ‘not known’. W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 9 Since additional respondents 8 to 20 sought to be impleaded is entering appearance through counsel, we deem it appropriate to allow this interlocutory application as prayed for, subject to the condition that the writ petitioners shall take out fresh notice to additional respondents 22 and 23 by speed post, in their correct address. Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title.” 6. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2022, the petitioners have placed on record Exts.P7 to P9 as additional documents. 7. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.08.2022, producing therewith Exts.R1(A) to Ext.R1(N) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of the counter affidavit read thus:- “3. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the general body for constituting a temple advisory committee of Vadakkumnatha temple was convened without notice and in violation of Exhibit P5 Bye law. It is submitted that the first petitioner participated in the general body meeting convened on 20.06.2022. In this regard true copy of the minutes of the general body meeting convened on 20.06.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(A). The first petitioner is serial number 69 in Exhibit R1(A) minutes. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition also, the petitioners alleges that general body was convened without W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 10 informing anybody. In view of Exhibit R1(A), the allegation of the petitioners that general body was convened without proper notice is absolutely incorrect. The petitioners have not disclosed that the 1[st] petitioner participated in the general body. So, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 4. It is not in dispute that by order on A5.11145/2018 dated 15.10.2018, the 1[st] respondent approved the temple advisory committee of Vadakkumnatha temple for a period of two years. The term of the said committee has to expire on 15.10.2020. But, in view of the Covid 19 pandemic the term of the temple advisory committee of temples coming under the 1[st] respondent was extended for a period of one year from 27.10.2020. In this regard true copy of order No.A5.11145/18 dated 27.10.2020 of the first respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(B). Thereafter by a general order issued by the first respondent as order No. M-144/09 dated 08.10.2021 the term of the temple advisory committees was further extended till 30.04.2022. In this regard true copy of order No. M-144/09 dated 08.10.2021 of the first respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(C). While so, Writ Petition (Civil) No.6551/2022 was filed by one K.B. Sumodh contending that the first respondent is attempting to extend the term of the temple advisory committee for a period of two years and also sought for a direction to the 1[st] respondent to constitute a new temple advisory committee in the temple. By Exhibit P3 judgment dated 22.03.2022, W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 11 this Honourable court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent herein to convene a general body meeting for constituting a temple advisory committee for Vadakkumnathan temple in terms of Exhibit P5 bye-law, within a period of two months. 5. It is submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this Honourable Court, official memorandum No. A5. 11145/18 dated 04.04.2022 was issued by the first respondent. In this regard true copy of the official memorandum No. A5. 11145/18 dated 04.04.2022 issued by the first respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(D). In terms of the directions issued by this Honourable court and Exhibit R1(D) official memorandum the third respondent proceeded to convene a general body meeting in terms of Exhibit P5 bye-law. After finalising the members of the general body, a final list was published. Altogether, 1304 applications were received by the third respondent. As directed by this Honourable court in its order dated 29.07.2022 the copy of the applications submitted by the petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 are produced herewith. True copy of application dated 30.4.2022 submitted by the 1[st] petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(E). True copy of application dated 30.4.2022 submitted by the 2[nd] petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(F). True copy of application dated 18.4.2022 submitted by the 4[th] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(G). True copy of application dated 18.4.2022 submitted W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 12 by the 5[th] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(H). True copy of application dated 18.4.2022 submitted by the 6[th] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(I). True copy of application dated 19.4.2022 submitted by the 7[th] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(J). 6. Since 1304 applications were received, the third respondent convened the general body meeting on 20.06.2022 at Neeranjali hall near to the devaswom office building. In this regard true copy of the notice No.C 259/14 dated 13.06.2022 issued by the third respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(K), Exhibit R1(A) minutes would show that 217 persons participated in the general body and no consensus could be arrived at in the general body meeting. Altogether 69 persons were nominated. So the third respondent in terms of Exhibit P5 bye laws, informed the matter to the first respondent through the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner in turn reported the matter to the second respondent by letter number M1. 5382/18 dated 21.06.2022. In this regard, true copy of letter No. MI5382/18 dated 21.06.2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur to the 2[nd] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(L). On receipt of Exhibit R1(L), the 1[st] respondent by order No. A5. 7340/2022 dated 29.06.2022 directed the 3[rd] respondent to nominate the names of 19 persons from among the 69 persons nominated. In this regard true copy of order No. A5. W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 13 7340/2022 dated 29.06.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(M). In terms of Exhibit R1(M) order, the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur forwarded the list of 19 persons nominated by the 3[rd] respondent to the second respondent. In this regard, true copy of letter No. Ml. 5382/18 dated 29.06.2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur to the second respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(N). It is thereafter, the 1[st] respondent approved the nomination made by the 3[rd] respondent and Exhibit P6 order was issued on 08.07.2022. After constituting a temple advisory committee as per Ext.P6 order the members of the temple advisory committee elected the office bearers of the temple advisory committee and the first respondent issued Exhibit P10 order on 21.07.2022. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners have no case that any of the provisions in Exhibit P5 bye-law was violated while constituting the temple advisory committee. Further, the petitioners have no complaint against the remaining persons other than respondents 4 to 7 who were included in the temple advisory committee. Allegations are raised mainly against the 5[th] respondent. The main allegation against the 5[th] respondent is that he was an accused in C.C. No. 118/2003. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent was not convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur as evident from Exhibit P9 order dated 24.01.2012. It is also contended in ground number B of the writ petition that 4[th] respondent herein was the 5[th] accused in the said W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 14 calendar case. But, a perusal of Ext. P9 order would show that 4[th] respondent herein was not an accused as alleged in ground B of the writ petition. 8. It is submitted that this deponent is not aware of Exhibit P7 news item appeared in Madhyamam daily dated 18.07.2022, which is admittedly published after the filing of the above writ petition. It is submitted that the general body for constituting the temple advisory committee was convened strictly in accordance with Exhibit P5 bye laws.” 8. The document marked as Ext.R1(B) is a copy of Board order dated 27.10.2020, whereby, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple was extended for a period of one year from 15.10.2020. Thereafter, as per Ext.R1(C) order dated 08.10.2021 of the Cochin Devaswom Board, the term of all Temple Advisory Committees of temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board were extended for a further period of one year, i.e., till 30.04.2022. 9. The document marked as Ext.R1(D) is an office memorandum dated 04.04.2022 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board regarding constitution of a new Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, Exts.R1(G) to R1(J) are the copies of the applications made by respondents 4 to 7 and Exts.R1(E) and R1(F) W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 15 are the copies of the application by the 1[st] petitioner and 2[nd] petitioner for membership in the registered mandalam for being elected as the members for the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple. 10. Respondents 4 to 7 have filed counter affidavit dated 29.08.2022, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(e) documents. Paragraphs 4 to 12 of the counter affidavit read thus:- “4. The temple advisory committee came into existence in the year 2018. Before that a 'Khethara Kshema Samithy' was functioning for almost 40 years. Ext.P5 byelaw is applicable for 417 temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. In 2018, Ext.P5 byelaw approved by this Hon'ble Court, was enforced for the first time. In the General Body meeting of the year 2018, 236 members participated. The Petitioner cannot collaterally lay challenge to the approved Bye Law in these proceedings. 5. The averment in para 1 and 2 of the Writ Petition in incorrect and the same is denied. The General Body meeting was convened on 20.06.2022 at Neeranjali auditorium, Round North, adjacent to the office of the Cochin Devaswom Board. A notice of the General Body was published in the notice board in the Temple on 04.06.2022, as is the usual practice. This is in conformity with clause 3 of Ext.P5. Though only a period of 7 days is contemplated, in the present case W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 16 15 days notice was given. 6. The averment against the 5[th] respondent regarding financial misappropriation is totally unfounded. The 5[th] respondent was a member of Asokeswaram Temple, Vadake Stand, Thrissur. Around 20 years back, a cheque for Rs.1000/- issued by the Vice President and Treasurer of the Kshetra Khema Samithy was presented by the 5[th] respondent and the same was en-cashed. That amount was handed over by the 5[th] respondent to the Vice President then itself. The then Secretary of the Samithy, one Babu had filed a criminal case alleging that the cheque was issued and encashed by the Samithy without his signature on the cheque leaf. There were 4 accused in the case, including the Cochin Devaswom Board Special Commissioner, Sri.V.Thankappan. Babu withdrew the case against Thankappan and thereafter he withdrew the case against the others also. There was no misappropriation of any amounts as alleged. A true copy of the order in C.C.No.118 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, dated 24.01.2012, is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R4(a). 7. The wild allegations made against the 5[th] respondent and his wife in para 3 of the writ Petition are totally baseless and unnecessary. At no point of time did the erstwhile Samithy or the present committee have an account with the State Bank of India. The account maintained with Dhanalakshmi Bank was opened on 04.12.2001. Therefore, the allegation that the 5[th] respondent transferred the account from SBI to Dhanalakshmi Bank is totally incorrect and made deliberately W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 17 to mislead this Hon'ble Court. A true copy of the first page of the passbook of the Samithy maintained with the Dhanalaxmi Bank, Thrissur Main branch, dated nil, is produced herewith and is Exhibit R4(b). 8. A similar complaint was made against the 5[th] respondent by the petitioner in Ext.P3 Writ Petition by way of a letter petition before this Hon'ble Court and also before the Ombudsman. Notice has been issued by the Devaswom Board. A true copy of the notice issued by the Devaswom along with its annexures, dated 18.07.2022, is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R4(c). 9. The allegations in para 4 of the writ petition is incorrect and the same is denied. The 5[th] respondent has not been convicted of any financial fraud nor has he been convicted in any criminal case. The accounts of the Committee are being regularly audited and are being submitted to the Devaswom upto the year 2021. Till date, no objection has been raised by the Devaswom. A true copy of the Auditor's report dated 11.02.2021, is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R4(d). A true copy of the Auditor's report, dated 18.05.2022, is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R4(e). 10. As per clause 13 of Ext.P5 an officer bearer can hold the post only for one term and after a gap of two years, he can be nominated again for one more term. The term of the 2018 committee expired on November, 2020. Due to the pandemic, the committee continued because no General Body meeting could be convened on account of the restrictions in vogue. 11. A receipt is issued by the Devaswom for an amount of W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 18 Rs.720/- for taking photographs outside the temple premises. The 5[th] respondent has no role in permitting photos to be taken in the temple. The Devaswom has employed 12 security guards in the temple. Till date, no complaint has been made against the 5[th] respondent. CCTV cameras are also installed in the temple. 12. None of the grounds raised in the Writ petition are correct and the same is liable to be rejected. No grounds have been made to make fresh appointments to the Samithy. The 1[st] petitioner had participated in the G.B. Ext.P11 paper report has been produced to mislead this Hon'ble Court. These respondents have not got the same published.” 11. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2022, the petitioners have placed on record Exts.P10 to P13 as additional documents. 12. Additional respondents 8 to 20 have filed a counter affidavit dated 16.08.2023. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 7, producing therewith Exts.P14 to P16 documents. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the reply affidavit read thus; “2. It is respectfully submitted that at the time of filing the above Writ Petition (Civil), the petitioners were not aware that Sri. Pankajakshan, who is the 4[th] respondent in the above Writ Petition (Civil) he was an office bearer of political party. Now it is came to understand that he has been elected as local W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 19 committee Secretary of the present Ruling Party [CPI(M)] at Patturaikkal, Thrissur District. Exhibit-P5 bye-law of the Cochin Devaswom Board, it is clearly stated that a political party leader should not be in the Kshetra Upadesaka Saminithi of any Temple. By ignoring the same, he is nominated as President of the Vadakkumnathan Temple Advisory Committee. By knowing that he is in the front line of the ruling political party, he was nominated by the Cochin Devswom Board. By suppressing the same, he has filed a counter affidavit also by stating that wrong allegations were made against him. The 1[st] petitioner is used to visit temple, morning and evening and it is stated that notice was published in the notice board for election. The 1[st] petitioner was also participated in the election, but election was not conducted only persons of their choice was nominated. The said aspect was pleaded in the above Writ Petition (Civil). Moreover, Vadakkumnathan Temple Advisory Committee is conducting money collection by using the receipt book which was issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board. This is usually in connection with the Anayoottu, Sivarathri, Deepavali, Kalasabhishekam, Mandala Mahotsavam. These receipt books were approved by the Cochin Devaswom Board. The said collected amount will come to more than 1½ crores rupees every year. An account was maintained by the Vadakkumnathan Temple Advisory Committee in Dhanalakshmi Bank, Naikkanal Branch. When the 5[th] respondent Sri.T.R.Hariharan nominated as Secretary, he was not depositing the collected amount to the bank daily instead cheque was issued and lot of amounts were withdrawn from the bank for the expenditure and no records were W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 20 maintained to show that the said amount was particularly used for maintenance of the temple. The amount which was collected as cheque was deposited with Dhanalakshmi Bank, Guruvayoor Branch and Anthani Branch of the Vadakkumnathan Temple Advisory Committee. Sri. Sumodh a devotee of the temple has collected a statement of accounts from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023 under Right to Information Act. In that statement, it can be seen that no deposits are being made by the Vadakkumnathan Temple Advisory Committee till that date. A true copy of the statement of account bearing Account No. 000100106059260 from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2023 issued by the Dhanalakshmi Bank, Thrissur Branch is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-P14. A true copy of the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2021 prepared by P.Venkiteswaran, Chartered Accountant of the Vadakkumnathan Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-P15. Both will not tally. 3. By pointing out all these aspects, Sri.Sumodh a devotee of the Vadakkumnathan Temple has filed a complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur for enquiring the matter against the respondents 4, 5 and 7 and it is pending consideration. A true copy of the complaint dated nil filed by one devotee of the Vadakkumnathan Temple, Thrissur Sri.K.B.Sumodh is produced herewith and marked as ExhibitP16.” 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 21 3, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 and also the learned counsel for respondents 8 to 20. 14. 13. In **Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988)** **4 SCC 534]** the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 15. In **M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat** W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 22 **[(1998) 4 SCC 387]** the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3 and 4". The Apex Court held that, it is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non compliance with W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 23 a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. On the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings. 16. In **Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 24 entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. 17. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, without making specific allegations against the additional respondents, by way of W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 25 amendment of the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner cannot raise a valid challenge against their election as members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakumnathan Temple. As stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee was extended for a period of one year from 15.10.2020 by Ext.R1(B) Board order dated 27.10.2020 and thereafter, it was extended further till 30.04.2022 by Ext.R1(C) order dated 08.10.2021, which is one issued extending the term of all Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board, on account of the situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19 pandemic. The grievance of the petitioners, which is highlighted in the writ petition is that without convening a general body of the registered devotees, in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 22.03.2022 in W.P.(C)No.6551 of 2022, it was decided to continue the very same committee, in which respondents 4 to 7 were nominated. As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent, since there was no consensus in the general body convened on 20.06.2022, the Temple W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 26 Advisory Committee was constituted by way of nomination, as provided in the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. When such a course is legally permissible, in the absence of any vitiating circumstances made out by the petitioners, no interference is possible on Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Board granting approval to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple. 18. Though the petitioners have placed on record various documents along with the interlocutory applications filed for accepting additional documents, to point out various irregularities committed by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was holding office from 15.10.2018 to 20.06.2022, we do not propose to consider those aspects in this writ petition, since the challenge made against Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 is mainly on the ground that there was no proper election in the general body held on 20.06.2022. When there was no consensus in the general body convened on 20.06.2022, which was attended by the 1[st] petitioner, as stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 27 respondent, the 1[st] respondent Board cannot be found fault with in constituting a Temple Advisory Committee, by way of nomination, in terms of the provisions contained in the Rules (Bye-laws) framed under sub-section 3 of Section 76A of the Act. 19. In the result, the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2022 of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board fails for the aforesaid reasons and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners based on the additional documents placed on record. It would be open to the petitioners to raise such contentions in Complaint No.13 of 2022 pending before the learned Ombudsman, which is one made by the writ petitioner in Ext.P3 judgment, by getting themselves impleaded as additional respondents before the learned Ombudsman. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** rp W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 28 ``` APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23085/2022 ``` |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5.11145/2018 DATED`**| ||**`15.10.2018-KUS-304/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IA/CDB/173/2020 DATED`**| ||**`04.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION`**| ||**`OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ONE OF DEVOTEE OF THE`**| ||**`TEMPLE.`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2022 IN W.P.(C)`**| ||**`NO.6551/2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.05.2022`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE BYLAW OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD IN`**| ||**`RESPECT OF CONSTITUTING FOR KSHETHRA UPADESAKA`**| ||**`SAMITHIS.`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5.7340/2022 DATED`**| ||**`08.07.2022-K.U.S-547/22 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY`**| ||**`DATED 18/07/2022`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 197/2003 DATED`**| ||**`14/03/2003 IN FIR NO. 133/2002 REGISTERED BY THE`**| ||**`THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER COMPOUNDED OUT OF COURT PASSED`**| ||**`BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED`**| ||**`24/01/2012`**| |**`EXHIBIT P10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE`**| ||**`ACCOUNT ALONG WITH RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT WITH`**| ||**`BALANCE SHEET FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-20`**| |**`EXHIBIT P11`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE`**| ||**`ACCOUNT WITH RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT WITH BALANCE`**| ||**`SHEET FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2020-21`**| |**`EXHIBIT P12`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE DONATIONS`**| ||**`RECEIVED BY VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE`**| W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 29 ||**`OF MAHA SIVARATHRI FESTIVAL DURING THE YEAR 2019`**| |---|---| |**`EXHIBIT P13`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN`**| ||**`LAKSHARCHANA DURING THE 2019 BY THE TEMPLE ADVISORY`**| ||**`COMMITTEE`**| |**`EXHIBIT P14`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT BEARING ACCOUNT`**| ||**`NO. 000100106059260 FROM 01.04.2021 TO 31.03.2023`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK THRISSUR BRANCH`**| |**`EXHIBIT P15`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2021`**| ||**`PREPARED BY THE P.VENKITESWARAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT`**| ||**`OF THE VADAKKUMNATHAN KSHETHRA UPADESHKA SAMITHI`**| |**`EXHIBIT P16`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED BY ONE`**| ||**`DEVOTEE OF THE VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE, THRISSUR SRI.`**| ||**`K.B SUMODH`**| |**`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`EXHIBIT R1 A`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING`**| ||**`CONVENED ON 20/06/2022.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 B`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 11145/18 DATED 27/10/2020`**| ||**`OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 C`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. M-144/09 DATED 08/10/2021 OF`**| ||**`THE FIRST RESPONDENT`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 E`**|**`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE 1ST PETITIONER.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 F`**|**`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE 2ND PETITIONER.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 G`**|**`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE 4TH RESPONDENT`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 H`**|**`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 I`**|**`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE 6TH RESPONDENT`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 J`**|**`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 19.4.2022 SUBMITTED BY`**| ||**`THE 7TH RESPONDENT`**| W.P.(C) No.23085 OF 2022 30 |**`EXHIBIT R1 M`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A5. 7340/2022 DATED 29/06/2022.`**| |---|---| |**`EXHIBIT R1 D`**|**`TRUE COPY OF OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO. A5. 11145/18`**| ||**`DATED 04/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 K`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C 259/14 DATED 13/06/2022`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 L`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. M1. 5382/18 DATED 21/06/2022`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR TO THE`**| ||**`SECOND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT R1 N`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. M1. 5382/18 DATED 29/06/2022`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR TO THE`**| ||**`SECOND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXT. R4(A)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C.NO.118 OF 2003 ON THE`**| ||**`FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR, DATED`**| ||**`24-1-2012`**| |**`EXT. R4(B)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE`**| ||**`SAMITHY MAINTAINED WITH THE DHANALAXMI BANK, THRISSUR`**| ||**`MAIN BRANCH, DATED NIL`**| |**`EXT. R4(C)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM ALONG`**| ||**`WITH ITS ANNEXURES, DATED 18-07-2022`**| |**`EXT. R4(D)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE AUDITOR'S REPORT DATED 11-02-2021`**| |**`EXT. R4(E)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE AUDITOR'S REPORT, DATED 18-05-2022`**|