Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1124
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar, R.Mahadevan, JJ.
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
G. Vijayanathakurup And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 13708-13709 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).10598-10599 of 2023)
With
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr – Petitioners
Versus
Dias Y. And Anr – Alleged Contemnors
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 987-988 OF 2023 In Civil Appeal No(s). 13708-13709 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).10598 – 10599 of 2023)
Decided On : 03-12-2024
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mugdha, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Koshy John, Adv. Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Adv. Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Ms. Athira G Nair, Adv. Ms. Viddusshi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Santhosh, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Mr. Anandhu S. Nair, Adv. M/s. Lawfic, AOR Mr. Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, AOR Mr. Rahul Kulhare, Adv. Mr. Gagan Singh Parmar, Adv. Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR Ms. Jeba Khan, Adv. Mr. Anand Krishna, Adv. Mr. Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod, AOR Mr. R. Krishnaraj, Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Dr. Linto KB, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR
The court ruled that the High Court lost jurisdiction after disposing of the main appeal and emphasized the necessity of conducting elections for effective temple management.
Headnote:(A) Bye-laws of the temple - Administration - The appellants, elected Secretary and President of the temple, challenged the High Court's orders regarding management and elections of the temple's committees. The court emphasized the need for elections under a new Administrative Head for effective management. (Paras 15, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - Functus Officio - The court addressed whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory application after disposing of the main appeal, ruling that it did not. (Paras 8, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed to be the elected officials of a temple without a deity, managing various institutions under its bye-laws. They contested the High Court's orders that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one.
Findings of Court:
The court appointed a retired judge as Administrative Head to conduct elections and manage the temple, emphasizing adherence to the bye-laws.
Issues: The main issues were the High Court's jurisdiction post-appeal and the legality of removing the elected committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court lost jurisdiction after disposing of the appeal and emphasized the importance of conducting elections for proper temple management.
Result: Civil Appeals disposed of with modifications to the impugned orders.
JUDGMENT
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and President of a temple viz., Oachira Parabrahma Temple situated at Kerala (hereinafter shortly referred to as "the subject temple"), have preferred these Civil Appeals against two orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam viz. one is a final Judgment and order dated 02.03.2020 passed in RFA No. 562/2010 and another is an order dated 07.02.2023 passed in I.A No. 5/2022.
Brief background
3. According to the averments made in the Civil Appeals, the subject temple is a unique, ancient and historical one as there is no building, consecrated idol or deity and sanctum sanctorum. The management of the temple and the institutions being run under it, such as, super speciality hospital, nursing college, etc., are governed by the bye-laws of the temple. As per the Bye-laws, the administration is vested in a system of three-tier elected Committees, viz., Pothubharana Samithi (General Board), Pravarthaka Samithi (Working Committee) and Karya Nirvahana Samithi (Executive Committee). The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were elected as Secretary and President respectively of the Executive Committee in the election held during May 2017 and thereafter, no election has been conducted so far. However, on 07.04.2022, the Executive Committee, which existed till then, was voted out in a no-confidence motion, and a new committee consisting of 11 members, including the appellants, assumed office.
4. In the year 2006, some devotees filed a suit in OS.No.1/2006 before the 1st Additional District Court, Kollam, seeking to frame a Scheme for administration of the subject temple and the institutions thereunder. By judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree directing framing a Scheme; and further, directed the parties to file a draft Scheme. It was also observed by the trial Court that till the Scheme is framed, the administration of the subject temple would continue as per the Bye-laws of the temple.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid preliminary decree of the trial Court, the defendant Nos.12 and 13 who are Sthanis (Hereditary Trustees) of the temple, preferred a Regular First Appeal bearing No.562/2010 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, seeking a direction to the trial Court to make adequate safeguards for them, with respect to their share of amounts and their roles to play, in the proposed Scheme. During the pendency of the said RFA, an interim order dated 05.10.2010 came to be passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, appointing an Advocate Commissioner viz., Mr.B.Premnath, for the purpose of counting the offerings in the temple. According to the appellants, the Advocate Commissioner so appointed was only to the limited purpose of counting the offerings in the temple and he had not been given any power to administer the subject temple over and above the Committees or to supervise the Committees at any point of time.
6. By the 1st impugned order, the High Court disposed of the aforesaid Regular First Appeal, inter alia, directing the trial Court to frame a Scheme for the management of the temple and its institutions and to formulate Rules with respect to their functioning, after giving opportunity to all the parties to produce draft Scheme as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one year from the date of production of copy of the Judgment. Further, the High Court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, a retired Judge of the High Court of Kerala, as the Administrative Head of the subject temple and the Trust/Managing Committee. It was further observed in the 1st impugned order that the Administrative Committee (the bodies elected as per the bye- laws of the temple) shall be under the supervision and full control of the said Administrative Head; until such time the scheme is framed by the Trial Court; all decisions of the elected bodies shall require to be
