W.P.(C) Nos. 9241/2021, 25720/2021 and 35870/2022; Vinod S.R. v. Travancore Devaswom Board

W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 1 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.9241 OF 2021`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` VINOD S.R. AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, VINOD NIVAS, CONVENT ROAD, NEYYATTINKKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 121. ``` ``` BY ADVS. AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.G.P.SHINOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003.`** - **`2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003.`** - **`3 ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA GROUP, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.`** - **`4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND SECURITY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 026.`** - **`5 ADDL.R5:T SREEKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN NAIR, SREE VIHAR, FORT, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`6 ADDL.R6:D.ANILKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN, VIRUTHIVILA VEEDU, FORT, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`7 ADDL.R7: S.K.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.KESAVAPILLA, ROHINI, KRISHNA NAGAR, AALUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.`** W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 2 - **`8 ADDL.R8:K.RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN AASHARI, KANDUKASHI THOPPU VEEDU, FORT, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`9 ADDL.R9: KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, NAKSHATRA, RAMESHWARAM WARD, AMARAVILA POST, NEYYATTINKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`10 ADDL.R10: SATHISH V, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, NANDANAM, FORT, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`11 ADDL.11: RATHISH KUMAR K, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, V M. NIVAS, CHAMBAYIL, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`12 ADDL.R12: SOBHA RANI, AGED 70 YEARS`** - **`D/O.RISHNA PILLA, PADMA NIVAS, FORT, KRISHNANAGAR, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.`** - **`13 ADDL.R12: PRADEEP KUMR K.P., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, SRAVASATHI MACHUVILA, PERUMBAZHATHOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`14 ADDL.R14: ADVIRUMBIL VIJAYAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, ANAND BHAVAN, R.C.STREET, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`15 ADDL.R15: SURESHKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PANDIMAM VILA VEEDU, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`16 ADDL.R16:AADHARSH, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.PREMACHANDRAN, NEDIYAVILA ARAPURAPUTHEN VEEDU, KADAVATTARAM, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`17 ADDL.R17: VIPIN AGED 35 YEARS S/O. RAVI, AYANIYARATHALA PUTHENVEEDU, MANNALLOOR, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`18 ADDL.R18: G. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHAN, SOUPARNIKA, R.C. STREET, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695121`** - **`19 ADDL.R19: ABHILASH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, SOUPARNIKA, ATHIYANOOR, ARALOOMOODU, POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695121`** W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 3 - **`20 ADDL.R20: M.SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN PILLA, ANANDASREE, SREE KIRHNAN KOVIL, THEKKENADA, FORT, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`21 ADDL.R21: V.RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, THRISANDHYA, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`22 ADDL.R22: C.GIRIJA, AGED 64 YEARS D/O.KUNJAMMA, P.G.BHAVAN, CHAMBAYIL ROAD, KRISHNAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`23 ADDL.R23: D.UNNI AGED 59 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHA PANICKER, ALUNINNAVILA VEEDU, OORUTTUKALA, MOONUKALLILMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`24 ADDL.R24: K.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, SANTHIBHAVAN, CHAMBAYILROAD, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`25 ADDL.R25: RATHISH P.R., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AATTUKADAVU, MELATHIL VEEDU, FORT, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121`** - **`26 ADDL.R26: PAPPUKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLA, P.G. BHAVAN, CHAMBAIL ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121 ADDL R5 TO R26 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.12.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WPC NO.9241/2021. BY ADVS.`** ``` SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SREEDEVI KYLASANATH ACHUTH KYLAS JOSELAL GEORGE R.MAHESH MENON DEAGO JOHN K SHALEENA RAJAN ANJU XAVIER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).25720/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 4 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` W.P.(C)NO.25720 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 T. SREEKUMARAN NAIR AGED 70 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN NAIR, SREE VIHAR, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`2 S.K. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, ROHINI, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`3 D ANIL KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, VIRUTHIVILA VEEDU, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`4 K.RAJAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN ASARI, KANDUKRISHI THOPPU VEEDU, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`5 KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, NAKSHATRA, RAMWSWARAM WARD, NEAR RAMESWARAM MAJOR MAHADEVA TEMPLE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`6 SATHEESH V AGED 52 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, NANDANAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`7 RATHEESH KUMAR K. AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, V.M. NIVAS, CHAMPAYAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`8 SOBHA RANI AGED 67 YEARS D/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, PADMA NIVAS, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121. BY ADVS. V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)`** W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 5 - **`V.JAYA RAGI R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) NEERAJ NARAYAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.`** - **`2 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER, DEVASOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003.`** - **`3 VINOD S.R, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, VINOD NIVAS, CONVENT ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121. BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).9241/2021, 35870/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 6 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.35870 OF 2022`** ``` PETITIONERS: ``` - **`1 T.SREEKUMARAN NAIR AGED 70 YEARS`** - **`S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, SREE VIHAR, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`2 S. K. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O K SUKUMARAN NAIR, ROHINI, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695121.`** - **`3 D.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O DAMODARAN NAIR, VIRUTHIVILA VEEDU, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.`** - **`4 K.RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN ASARI, KANDUKRISHI THOPPU VEEDU, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695121.`** - **`5 KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O DAMODARAN NAIR, NAKSHATRA, RAMESWARAM WARD, NEAR RAMESWARAM MAJOR MAHADEVA TEMPLE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`6 SATHEESH.V, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVAN NAIR, NANDANAM, FORT - NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`7 RATHEESH KUMAR K, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY, V. M NIVAS, CHAMPAYAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121.`** - **`8 SHOBHA RANI, AGED 67 YEARS, D/O KRISHNA PILLAI, PADMA NIVAS, FORTNEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695121. BY ADVS.`** - **`V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) NEERAJ NARAYAN`** - **`V.JAYA RAGI`** - **`R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)`** ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 7 - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695003. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.`** - **`2 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.`** - **`3 DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (P&SGRC), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.`** - **`4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF DEVASWOM, NEYYATTINKARA CIRCLE, DEVASWOM OFFICE, SREEKRISHNA SWAMI TEMPLE PREMISES, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121.`** - **`5 VINOD, S/O RAMACHANDRAN, VINOD NIVAS, CONVENT ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121. BY ADVS.`** ``` SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD G.P.SHINOD AJIT G ANJARLEKAR ATUL MATHEWS GAYATHRI S.B. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).25720/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 8 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The issue raised in these writ petitions relates to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. **W.P.(C)No.9241 of 2021** :- The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board that the material object (anjili wood) in the vigilance case instituted against the purchase of anjili wood by the Temple Advisory Committee for the period 2016-18 shall be disposed of only after following due procedures. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4[th] respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police), Travancore Devaswom Board to complete the investigation pertaining to the purchase of anjili wood by the Temple Advisory Committee for the period 2016-18, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2.1. On 08.04.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. While adjourning the matter for W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 9 further consideration to 28.05.2021, it was ordered that the material object in the vigilance case viz; anjili wood, shall not be put in auction, till such time. The said order was followed by an order dated 31.05.2021, which reads thus; “After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, in modification of the order dated 08.04.2021, we direct that the auction of the 'anjili' wood stated to have been purchased by the office bearers of the then Temple Advisory Committee shall be auctioned, if at all, only after a proper mahazar/inventory is prepared with the assistance of the Forest Department. The 4[th] respondent shall ensure that necessary identification of the same shall be ensured so that there is no hindrance to the vigilance case on account of action of the items. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall also implead the office bearers of the present Temple Advisory Committee as well as the members of the previous Committee who alleged to be involved in the purchase of the wood as additional respondents to the writ petition.” 2.2. On 15.09.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, in I.A.No.1 of 2021, notice was ordered to additional respondents 5 to 26 sought to be impleaded. Thereafter, by the order dated 17.12.2021, they were impleaded as the additional respondents. 2.3. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 05.08.2022, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(c) documents. Paragraphs 4 to 9 of that counter affidavit read thus; “4. It is true that the Tantri of the temple issued Ext.P1 to the 3[rd] respondent requesting to renovate the Namaskara Mandapam and accordingly it was decided to renovate the Namaskara Mandapam. W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 10 As per Ext.P2, the Temple Advisory Committee resolved to purchase Teak Wood from the Forest Department for the renovation purpose. The estimate was prepared by the Assistant Engineer for the renovation of the Namaskara Mandapam with Teak wood. A copy of the estimate prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Neyyattinkara is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(a). Thereafter the Temple Advisory Committee claims to have taken the advice of the Tantri and one carpenter and proceeded to purchase Anjili wood without following any procedure resulting in financial loss to the Board. 5. It is submitted that the Sub Group Officer who was the Treasurer of the Committee withdrew an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- for the purpose of purchasing wood for the renovation works. As per Ext.P4 report of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyattinkara permission was given to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,62,865/- from the joint account of the Committee for the purchase of teak wood and its construction. But the Committee had purchased Anjili wood instead of Teak wood. 6. It is submitted that no bill for the purchase of Anjili wood was produced, instead a letter in a letter head recording the measurement of the wood and amount alone is available. The amount recorded therein is Rs.3,29,773/-. The action of the then Temple Advisory Committee in purchasing Anjili wood from Kottayam while similar wood was available in the neighborhood is suspicious. 7. It is submitted that the 4[th] respondent has conducted an enquiry in the matter and submitted a report recommending to blacklist the then Temple Advisory Committee members. As per the report of the 4[th] respondent there is procedural lapse in the purchase of the Anjili wood and the same has caused loss to the Board. 8. It is submitted that the 2[nd] respondent called for a report from the 3[rd] respondent in the matter. The Assistant Devaswom W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 11 Commissioner reported that the Temple Advisory Committee had resolved to purchase Teak wood, but they purchased Anjili wood in place of Teak wood. The Assistant Engineer took measurements of the Anjili wood purchased and the Sub Group Officer was authorised to keep the same safely. As per order dated 24.07.2020 of the Devaswom Commissioner, the Assistant Engineer, Neyyattinkara was directed to prepare a survey report by taking measurements of the wood for auctioning it. The Temple Advisory Committee who were in office during 2018-20 completed the renovation of the Namskara Mandapam using Teak wood. A copy of the report of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyattinkara dated 18.04.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(b). 9. It is submitted that the 2[nd] respondent issued direction to the Executive Engineer, Estate Division to examine the timber and to fix its value so as to auction the wood. A copy of ROC 4720/18/M.1 dated 02.06.2022 issued by the 2[nd] respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(c). The loss sustained to the Board can be ascertained only after auctioning the Anjili wood.” 3. **W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021** :- The petitioners, who are the members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara during the period 2016-18, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 enquiry report dated 30.06.2020 of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner to take a final decision on Ext.P11 reply dated 01.03.2021 submitted by the 2[nd] petitioner. W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 12 3.1. On 18.11.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions. Registry was directed to list this matter along with W.P.(C)No.9241 of 2021. 3.2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit dated 05.08.2022, raising similar contentions as that raised in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.9241 of 2021. 4. **W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2022** :- The petitioners, who are the members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara during the period 2016-18, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 circular dated 02.09.2022 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner and Ext.P10 order dated 07.11.2022 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner. As per Ext.P1 circular dated 02.09.2022 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Devaswom Commissioner, persons who have filed litigation against Travancore Devaswom Board and persons who have trespassed into the properties of Travancore Devaswom Board shall be removed from the voters’ list of the Temple Advisory Committee of the respective temples. As per Ext.P10 order dated 07.11.2022 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioners are removed from the voters’ list of the Temple Advisory Committee of W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 13 Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 circular and Ext.P10 consequent order are per se illegal and colourable for the reasons that the same entrenches the right of the petitioners guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction allowing the petitioners to participate in the election of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishana Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara on the basis of Ext.P3 final voters’ list published by the Sub Group Officer, Sree Krishana Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara. 4.1. On 08.11.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice by special messenger was ordered to the 5[th] respondent, returnable by 15.11.2022. This Court granted an interim order directing that the election of members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara of the registered Mandalam scheduled to be held on 09.11.2022 will be subject to the outcome of this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the party W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 14 respondents. 6. As already noticed hereinbefore, the issues raised in these writ petitions center around the activities of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swami Temple, Neyyattinkara for the period 2016-18. 7. Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 31A of the Act, 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 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of subsection (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board. 8. Clause (2) of the Rules deals with objectives of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per Clause (2) of the Rules one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 15 for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department. 9. Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership. Clause (3) makes it explicitly clear that the membership in 'registered mandalam' is mainly for the devotees who are residing within a distance of 5kms from the temple, who are regular worshippers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Subclauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) deal with class of persons who are entitled to get membership. 10. In **Santharam Roy T.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (2) KHC 595 (DB)]** this Court held that, the provisions under Clause (3) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board makes it explicitly clear that the membership in 'registered mandalam' is mainly for the devotees who are residing within a distance of 5 kms from the temple, who are regular worshippers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of the Rules deal with class of persons who are entitled to W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 16 get membership. For constituting the Temple Advisory Committee, the devotees will have to be enrolled as members of 'registered mandalam'. The election of members to the Temple Advisory Committee is made from among the members of 'registered mandalam' present in the meeting convened by the Assistant Commissioner of the Group, as provided under Clause (5) of the Rules. 11. Clause (11) of the Rules, which deals with term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee. As per Clause (11) of the Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the Committee by the Department. The Devaswom Commissioner is empowered to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year on the ground of any development works or unavoidable rituals. On the aforesaid grounds the 1[st] respondent Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended beyond two years. 12. In **Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2021 (3) KHC 379]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, with the insertion of Section 31A to the Act the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples has become statutory. In the said decision, the Division Bench noticed that, the Travancore Devaswom Board, in exercise of the rule making power under clause (a) of sub-section (2) W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 17 of Section 35 of the Act, has framed rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board and this Court has approved the draft bye-laws by the order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No. 153 of 2009. Clause (11) of the Rules deals with the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee. As per Clause (11), the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner has the authority to extend the term of the committee by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board will have the power to extend the term by a further period of one year. The term shall not to be extended beyond the period of two years. Thus, the term of the committees is statutorily fixed. The term can be extended by one year or up to two years under certain unavoidable circumstances and no longer. The object of providing duration of office of Temple Advisory Committees in the approved bye-laws is to see that timely elections are held and the constitution of the Committees are not delayed. The power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, which is fixed as per the approved bye-laws, shall not be exercised as a matter of course. They shall call for report regarding the developmental work going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 18 carried out in the temple concerned and apply their mind to the materials and form a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not. 13. Clause (12) of the Rules deals with powers and rights of the Devaswom Board. As per Clause (12), the Devaswom Commissioner shall have the power to determine the qualification of the members of the Advisory Committee, the term of the Advisory Committee and also to remove the members of the Committee on the basis of specific reasons. In the event of the activities of the Advisory Committee being contrary to the interest of the Temple, Hindu faith or the Devaswom Board, or in the event of specific financial irregularities, the Commissioner shall have the absolute power to remove the Advisory Committee. 14. In **Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom** **Board and others** [Judgment dated 25.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No.7421 of 2022 - MANU/KE/1627/2022] one of the contentions raised before this Court by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 was that, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a Temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Board is outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. This Court noticed that, insofar as the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 is W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 19 concerned, as per Clause (2) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees, one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute the same with the approval of the Board. Clause (11) of the Rules provides that, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the Committee by the Department. The Devaswom Commissioner is empowered to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year on the ground of any development works or unavoidable rituals. On the aforesaid grounds the 1[st] respondent Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended beyond two years. 15. Clause (9) of the Rules deals with office bearers and their duties. Clause (9.1) deals with President, Clause (9.2) deals with Vice President, Clause (9.3.) deals with Secretary and Clause (9.4) deals with Treasurer. As per Clause (9) of the Rules, one of the duties of the President, as provided in Clause (9.1), is to formulate projects for the betterment of the temple and for the convenience of the devotees and implement the same with the approval of the Board. The President has W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 20 to supervise the collection of funds at the initiative of the Advisory Committee and he has to ensure that the functioning of the Committee is in accordance with the directions issued by the 1st respondent Board. As per Clause (9.3), the Secretary of the Committee has to get the approval of the Department for the collection of funds. He has to print coupons and keep them in safe custody after obtaining the seal of the Assistant Commissioner. He has to ensure that such coupons are used only as per the permission granted by the Board. The Secretary has to cause the accounts relating to the collection of funds, income and expenditure audited which shall be produced before the authorities in the Board before 30[th] April of every year. As per Clause (9.4) of the Rules, the Treasurer has to ensure that proper accounts are maintained for the income and expenditure and that the income and expenditure of the Advisory Committee is with the approval of the Committee and with the knowledge of the President and the Secretary. 16. In **Sunil Kumar C.** [MANU/KE/1627/2022] this Court held that, a reading of the provisions under Clause (9) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees makes it explicitly clear that the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. It would certainly be open to the Travancore W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 21 Devaswom Board to undertake such construction, repair or renovation work in a temple, directly by its Maramath Department. However, when the Board has chosen to undertake such construction or repair or renovation work in a temple through a committee, under the supervision of the officials in Maramath Department, it has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act, under constant supervision and scrutiny by the concerned officers of the 1[st] respondent Board, in order to ensure that the activities of the committee are in compliance with the directions issued by the Board. When the provisions under Section 31A of the Act contemplate constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee in the temples under the management of the Board, which is assigned with various duties as per the said Rules, which includes undertaking various developmental activities in the temple, the normal rule is that any developmental activity in a temple, which is not undertaken directly by the 1[st] respondent Board through its officials in the Maramath Department, has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee. In view of the provisions contained in Clause (2), Clause (9) and Clause (11) of the said Rules, and also the law laid down by this Court in **Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379]** , this Court found that the construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a Temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 22 Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. 17. Clause (18) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees prohibits the Temple Advisory Committee from collecting funds in connection with any ceremonies in the temple by placing kanikkavanchi or hundials. When coupons are printed for development activities in the temple, with the approval of the Department, only coupons for the specified amount shall be printed. No receipts without the seal of the Assistant Commissioner shall be used for collecting funds. As per Clause (18), a person who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be eligible to continue as such continuously exceeding the term of two committees. In **Sunil Kumar C.** [MANU/KE/1627/2022], this Court held that, the provisions under Clause (18) of the said Rules provide sufficient safeguards to prevent illegal collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee for development activities in a temple. 18. In **Sunil Kumar C.** [MANU/KE/1627/2022], on the facts of the case on hand, this Court noticed that, the extension of term granted to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, originally for a period of one year, as evidenced by communication dated 11.02.2019 of the Deputy Commissioner, was absolutely without any basis. The reason for such extension of term is W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 23 not discernible from the said communication of the Deputy Commissioner. The further extension of term for a period of six months each granted by the 1[st] respondent Board, as evidenced by communications dated 11.03.2020 and 28.10.2020, are for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam and for taking preparatory steps for Chithira Festival scheduled on 14.04.2020 and 14.04.2021 respectively. No materials were placed on record either by respondents 1 to 4 or by respondents 5 to 10 to show that any development work in connection with renovation of the Koothambalam commenced prior to 12.03.2019, for granting extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee by one year, by the Devaswom Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under Clause (11) of the Rules framed by Travancore Devaswom Board for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees. The extended term of one year expired on 12.03.2020. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent Board extended the term of the Committee for a period of one year (six months each), i.e., till 12.03.2021. Just before the expiry of the term, 'Anunja' ceremony was conducted on 04.03.2021 for obtaining the permission of deity to commence the renovation work of the Koothambalam. After obtaining 'Anunja' on 04.03.2021, no development activity in connection with renovation of the Koothambalam could be commenced, which is evident from the fact that the 1[st] respondent Board accorded sanction W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 24 to execute the work at the revised rate of Rs. 51,00,000/- only on 07.12.2021, as evidenced by proceedings dated 07.12.2021. Thereafter, respondents 6 to 10, who obtained 'Anunja' on 04.03.2021, entered into an agreement [Annexure R1(c)] with the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara, only on 18.01.2022. in view of the provisions under Clause (2), Clause (9) and Clause (11) of the said Rules and also the law laid down by this Court in **Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379]** , the construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. When respondents 6 to 10 are disqualified from being elected as members of the Temple Advisory Committee in view of the prohibition contained in Clause (18) of the said Rules, they cannot be included as members of an Ad-hoc Committee formed for the renovation of the Koothambalam. 19. In W.P.(C)No.9241 of 2021 and W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021, reliefs sought for are in respect of a Vigilance enquiry against the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swami Temple, Neyyattinkara for the year 2016-18, in which the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board has submitted Ext.P9 enquiry report in W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021. On that enquiry report, the 2[nd] petitioner in that writ petition has filed Ext.P11 reply. W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 25 20. In **Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das** **Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]** the Apex Court held that nonentertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 21. In **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85]** the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in **Chaabil** W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 26 **Das Agarwal's case (supra)** , i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in **Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419]** and **Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2** **SCC 433]** the Apex Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 22. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021 cannot seek writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 enquiry report submitted by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of Travancore Devaswom Board, in respect of an incident, which is referred to hereinbefore. After culmination of the enquiry, that report has to be placed before the Board, which has to take appropriate W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 27 decision, after considering the materials on record. If a person is feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by the Board, it is for him to challenge the same in an appropriate proceedings. 23. Having considered the facts and circumstances, as borne out from the pleadings and materials on record, we find that none of the grounds in W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021 are sufficient to seek a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 enquiry report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 24. Insofar as the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.35870 of 2022 is concerned, in view of Ext.P1 circular, the petitioners were interdicted from participating in the process of election for constituting a new Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, which was held on 09.11.2022. The restrictions imposed in Ext.P1 circular, which was followed by Ext.P10 order, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, considering the role of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which is a trustee in the management of the properties of the deity and that of the Temple Advisory Committee, which has statutory duties under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, read with Rule 31A(3) of the Rules, to render necessary assistance to the officials of the Devaswom to ensure that customary practice, rituals, ceremonies, etc., in the temple under the management of the Board is performed in accordance with the customs W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 28 and usage. Considering the nature of allegations, which is the subject matter in the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, as evidenced by Ext.P9 report in W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders in W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021. 25. During the course of arguments, it is pointed out that newly elected Temple Advisory Committee has already been taken charge. In the result, W.P.(C)No.25720 of 2021 fails for the aforesaid reason and accordingly the same is dismissed. In W.P.(C)Nos.9241 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022, interference is declined and the same are disposed of with the directions contained hereinbefore. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** **yd** W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 29 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9241/2021`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`EXHIBIT P1`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.9.2016`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE TANTRI OF SREE KRISHNA SWAMI`**| ||**`TEMPLE, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE 3RD`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P2`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 14.6.2017`**| ||**`OF THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE`**| |**`EXHIBIT P3`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.3.2018`**| ||**`PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P4`**|**`A TRUE COPY FOT HE LETTER DATED 12.3.2018`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P5`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.5.2018`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P6`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED`**| ||**`23.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`**| ||**`UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P7`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED`**| ||**`9.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO`**| ||**`THE PETITIONER.`**| |**`EXHIBIT P8`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED`**| ||**`5.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`**| ||**`BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`Exhibit R1(a)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE`**| ||**`ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA.`**| |**`Exhibit R1(b)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT`**| ||**`DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA DATED`**| ||**`18/4/2022`**| |**`Exhibit R1(c)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ROC 4720/18M.1 DATED`**| ||**`2/6/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 30 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25720/2021`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY`**| ||**`SAJI NAMBOODIRIPAD, NEDUMPALLY, THARANELLUR`**| ||**`MANA, THANISSERY TO NEYYATTINKARA ASSISTANT`**| ||**`DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`**| ||**`23.12.2017 NO ROC. NO. 14442/17/M ISSUED BY`**| ||**`SECRETARY OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO`**| ||**`THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEVASWOM.`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`**| ||**`04.03.2018 ISSUED BY SAJI NAMBOODIRIPAD,`**| ||**`NEDUMPALLY THARANELLUR MANA, THANISSERY TO`**| ||**`SREE KRISHNA SWAMI TEMPLE ADVISORY`**| ||**`COMMITTEE SECRETARY.`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`**| ||**`22.02.2018 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER,`**| ||**`TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA`**| ||**`GROUP TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM`**| ||**`COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA.`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE VOUCHER`**| ||**`ISSUED FROM DHANYA ASSOCIATES AND TIMBERS`**| ||**`ALIAS DHANYA WOOD INDUSTRIES.`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER DATED`**| ||**`06.03.2018.`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE VOUCHER DATED`**| ||**`06.03.2018.`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 166 DATED`**| ||**`17.03.2018 FORWARDED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER,`**| ||**`DEVASWOM, NEYYATTINKARA TO ASSISTANT`**| ||**`DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED`**| ||**`30.06.2020 NUMBERED PTN/91/18/TDB/VIG.`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE`**| ||**`DATED 09.09.2020 NUMBERED ROC 4170/16/NS-1`**| ||**`ISSUED TO S.K. JAYAKUMAR.`**| |**`Exhibit P11`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY S.K.`**| ||**`JAYAKUMAR BEFORE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER`**| ||**`DATED 01.03.2021.`**| |**`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`**|| |**`Exhibit R1(a)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE`**| ||**`ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA.`**| |**`Exhibit R1(b)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF`**| W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 |and 35870 of 2022|| |---|---| ||31| ||**`THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON`**| ||**`14/06/2017.`**| |**`Exhibit R1(c)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ASSISTANT`**| ||**`DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA DATED`**| ||**`12/03/2018.`**| |**`Exhibit R1(d)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ASSISTANT`**| ||**`DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA DATED`**| ||**`18/04/2022.`**| |**`Exhibit R1(e)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ROC 4720/18/M.1 DATED`**| ||**`02/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`**| W.P.(C)Nos.9241 and 25720 of 2021 and 35870 of 2022 32 ``` APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35870/2022 ``` |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. ROC`**| ||**`2021/19/NS-1 DATED 02.09.2022 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY SUB GROUP`**| ||**`OFFICER (SGO), NEYYATTINKARA DATED`**| ||**`26.10.2022`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`**| ||**`FINAL VOTERS LIST PUBLISHED BY THE SUB`**| ||**`GROUP OFFICER, SREEKRISHNA SWAMI TEMPLE,`**| ||**`NEYYATTINKARA`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEW ELECTION IDENTITY`**| ||**`CARD OF RATHEESH KUMAR ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE`**| ||**`DEVASWOM BOARD ON 04.11.2022`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED`**| ||**`30.06.2020 NUMBERED PTN/91/18/TDB/VIG`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED`**| ||**`09.09.2020 NUMBERED ROC 4170/16/NS-1 ISSUED`**| ||**`TO S.K JAYAKUMAR`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY FILED BY S.K`**| ||**`JAYAKUMAR BEFORE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER`**| ||**`DATED 01.03.2021`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT`**| ||**`PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25720 OF 2022 ON THE`**| ||**`FILES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 02.11.2022`**| ||**`FORWARDED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM`**| ||**`COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2022`**| ||**`NUMBERED ROC 8864/18/NS-1`**|