W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 — Board of Trustees, Sree Thricherumanna alias Kottiyoor Devaswom, Kannur District, and Sree Thricherumanna alias Kottiyoor Devaswom, Kannur District v. State of Kerala, Revenue (Devaswom) Department, Malabar Devaswom Board (Eranjipalem, Kozhikode) and others (including C. Haridas and K.K. Udayakumar)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 7TH BHADRA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 26005 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWAM, P.O.KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 651, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **2 SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWAM, P.O.KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 651, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **BY ADVS.** - **SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYASHREE PRIYA EASWARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 006.** 2 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 - **4* C.HARIDAS, S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 59 YEARS, CHODATH HOUSE, MANTHANAM, KANNUR DISTRICDT – 670 674.** - **5** K.K.UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 49, S/O CHANDUKUTTY NAIR, RESIDING AT 'SREEPARVATHY', POST MANATHANA, IRUTH TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 674.** - ***IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.11.2014 IN I.A.NO.15002 OF 2014.** - ****IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.12.2014 IN I.A.NO.16854 OF 2014.** **BY ADVS.** - **R1 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 BY SRI.K.R.SUNIL,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** - **R2 & R3 BY SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD R2 & R3 SRI R .LAKSHMINARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** - **R4 SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH R5 BY SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN** - **R5 BY SRI.SABU GEORGE** - **R5 BY SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI K. MOHANAKANNAN - FOR PETITIONER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 29.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ajithkumar, J. The Board of Trustees of Sree Thricherumanna @ Kottiyoor Devaswom, Kannur and also the Devaswom are the petitioners. The Board of Trustees claim that the affairs of the Temple are governed as per the provisions of the scheme framed by this Court in M.F.A.No.74, 208 and 933 of 1988 and the Board of Trustees was constituted as per the provisions of the said scheme. They alleging that respondents 2 and 3 are taking a recalcitrant attitude towards the affairs of the petitioner Devaswom, has filed this Writ Petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs,- - “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P12 order issued by the 3[rd] respondent; - (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3[rd] respondent not to proceed with any enquiry without passing orders in the pending applications awaiting approval as detailed in Ext.P9.” 4 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 2. As per the order dated 10.11.2014 in I.A.No.15002 of 2014, additional 4[th] respondent and as per order dated 16.12.2014 in I.A.No.16854 of 2014 additional 5[th] respondent were impleaded. On 16.12.2014, this Court ordered to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 show cause notice. 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents were heard. 4. Ext.P12 is a show cause notice issued by the 3[rd] respondent to the members of the Board of Trustees, wherein charges of maladministration in the affairs of the Temple and misappropriation are alleged. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that among the members of the Trustee Board enlisted in Ext.P12, persons at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 already expired and nothing set out in the show cause notice survives now. The learned counsel would submit that 5 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 after issuance of Ext.P12 notice, which was on 19.09.2014, twice the members of the Trustee Board have been replaced and in the circumstances, there is no meaning in continuing with the proceedings on Ext.P12. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board, on the other hand, would contend that having issued such a show cause notice, the proceedings has to be taken to its logical end and the demise of a few of the incumbents would not affect the said proceedings. ## 6. The Apex Court in **Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 33]** held, “Although ordinarily, a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including **State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179], Special Director V. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440]** , and **Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]** , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz. When a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable.” 6 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 ## 7. This Court in **Secretary, Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat v. Anandakumal [2015 (1) KHC 720: 2015** **(1) KLT SN 143]** has summarized the precedential position on the adjudicability of a show-cause notice thus: "16. There is no invariable principle that a showcause notice should not be a subject matter of judicial adjudication under any circumstance. Courts have held time and again that when the notice (i) suffers from the vice of ultra vires; (ii) is a fait accompli or premeditated; or (iii) is a product of malice or mala fides, it is justiciable without the party going through the procedural rigmarole." 8. The allegation of the petitioners is that Ext.P12 was issued with respect to the developmental activities carried out in the Temple and in scant disregard of the contentions taken up by the petitioner in an earlier Writ Petition they have filed, copy of which is Ext.P11. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the records, we are of the view that there is nothing to show that Ext.P12 was issued without jurisdiction or bona fides. Hence, we are of the view that there is no reason to quash Ext.P12. 7 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 10. It is true that there occurred much delay after issuance of Ext.P12. Four of the incumbents expired during the interregnum also. Nonetheless, the 3rd respondent can proceed with the proceedings as per Ext. P12. The 3rd respondent shall give reasonable opportunity to the incumbents and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. Since we are taking such a view, the contentions, both factual and legal raised by the parties on the matter are left open to be raised at appropriate time. 11. The second prayer is to direct the 3rd respondent not to proceed with the enquiry on Ext.P12 without passing orders on the pending applications as enlisted in Ext.P9. Representations, requests and suggestions made by the Kottiyoor Devaswom to the 3rd respondent Commissioner on various matters spanning from 2008 to 2014 are enlisted in Ext.P9. On a perusal of it, it would show that the matters enlisted are regarding various developmental activities, appointments, creation of posts and such other matters relating to the administration of the temple. Those are the matters to be considered and decided by respondents 2 and 3 8 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 on the merits of each item. The decision on such matters has no nexus to the proceedings on Ext.P12. We are therefore of the view that the second prayer is also not liable to be allowed. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 9 W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26005/2014** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.94 IN MFA 74/88 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DWATED 06.01.14 IN WP(C)31752/13 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE "PRASNA CHARTHU", (RELEVANT PAGES) DATED 02.09.1987.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J.66/2013/M.D.B (K.DIS) DATED 30.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM.** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY "JENMASHARI" DATED 13.06.2014.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY OTTAPILAN PANICKER MANGADEN KELAPPAN DATED 14.05.2014.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TKD/EST/24/2014 DATED 16.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J.4.3454/13/ADB DATED 08.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.** 10 ## W.P.(C) No.26005 of 2014 **EXHIBIT P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08.08.2014 IN W.P.(C)22264/14 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J4/3639/2014 DATED 19.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT SHOWING AMOUNTS SPENT FOR WIDENING AND PAVING GRANITE SLABS AT THIRUVANCHIRA.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PLACES INCLUDING THIRUVANCHIRA.**