Sankarasubban, J.

Both these Writ Petitions have been filed to bring to the notice of this Court that an elephant by name Manikantan, which was offered to Sree Vallablia Temple, Thiruvalla was dead. According to the petitioners, the elephant died because no proper care was taken and that the elephant was not properly treated for the disease. Since the petitioners proved a prima facie case, we appointed Sri. D. Sreevallabhan, Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta to enquire into the matter and file a report to this Court. Accordingly, he enquired into the matter and filed an enquiry report in two volumes. The first volume contains the report and the second volume contains depositions and documents.

2. In the report at page 39, it is stated as follows: “Hence, it is clear that there was laches on the part of EW 7 Sub Group Officer, EW 9 Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and EW 7 mahout in getting medical aid for the elephant at the proper time”. At page 47, it is stated as follows: “Hence negligence can be attributed on the part of EW 14 in causing the death of the elephant without giving effective treatment for the elephant.” In the same page at paragraph 22, it is further stated as follows: “No proper care was taken by him in diagnosing the disease or for giving necessary treatment to the elephant Manikantan. Hence, there is negligence on his part in not giving proper medical care and treatment”. At page 56 in paragraph 27 it is stated as follows: “During the course of enquiry it is clearly revealed that Manikantan was not properly fed and not much care as required by the rules was taken by EWs 7 and 9 in feeding the elephant. No earnest effort is seen to have been made by them to get proper medical aid while Manikantan was suffering from illness for days together”. Learned District Judge has further stated in paragraph 31 thus: “It is already pointed out that there is only one Veterinary Officer attached to the Travancore Devaswom Board for the check-up and treatment of about 50 elephants in the various temples of the Devaswom. EW 10 had stated that there are three Devaswom Districts having its headquarters at Thinivananthapuram, Ambalappuzha and Vaikom. In all these Districts there are elephants in several temples. All those elephants cannot be expected to get proper medical aid if there is only one Veterinary officer”. The Enquiry Officer further referred to Sub-clauses 2 to 12 of Rule 5 of the Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003 (Kerala). After going through the report, we accept the report. The first volume is marked as Ext. C-1 and the second volume is marked as Ext. C-2.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that some specific directions have to be issued to the Travancore Devaswom Board and its functionaries in order to avoid recurrence of such unfortunate calamities to the animals in the custody of the Devaswom.

4. It has to be remembered that the Devaswom Board is the custodian of the animals which are entrusted by the devotees with the fervent hope and expectation dig they will be looked after well. These animals are in a way offerings to the deities. Therefore, it is the paramount duty and responsibility of the, Board to take proper care of these animals at all costs.

5. The learned District Judge in his enquiry report has referred to clause 15 of Chapter XV of the Devaswom Manual which prescribes the duties of sub group officer as regards the elephants of the Devaswom. Clauses 16 to 20 have also been extracted in the report Which deal with the manner and mode in which the elephants have to be looked after and handled. The learned District Judge has also referred to clauses 9, 10 and 11 of Chapter XV which pertain to the food that has to be given to the elephants and also the pattern of feeding.

6. Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003 (Kerala) for short “the Rules” were brought into force on March 13, 2003. The Rules provide that the o