IMPORTANT POINTS
If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit therefrom. Rule 9 of Rules under Section 100(2)(q)(r) and (s) expressly provides that a trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work without the sanction of the appropriate Authority provided that minor repairs, which cannot owing to urgency be postponed in anticipation of sanction applied for. In the case at hand, the work done was not coming under the category of minor repairs as stated in the Rules. Hence the doctrine of necessity cannot be pressed into service in this case.

ORDER :

N.ANIL KUMAR, J:

The issue involved in these three cases is closely interlinked and hence they are dealt with together. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these petitions, it is advantageous to set out the facts in detail including the background of facts, which have led to the filing of these petitions. Parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners' and 'the respondents' according to their status in R.P.No.407/2019 in WP(C) No.40648/2018 unless otherwise stated.

2. W.P(C)No.40648/2018 was filed by one of the devotees of Sree Valayanadu Bhagavathi, the deity of Sree Valayanadu Devaswom, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Malabar Devaswom Board (2nd respondent in WP(C) No.40648/2018 and 3rd respondent in the review petition) and the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to conduct a detailed enquiry on Ext.P5 representation addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Devaswom Board in the matter of gold covering of 'kodimaram' of Sree Valayanadu Devaswom and also to take appropriate legal action against the persons, who are held responsible for divesting of funds and properties of the temple without authority in violation of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951(Madras Act No.XIX of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said writ petition, wherein one of us (N.Anil Kumar, J.) was a party, was disposed of by this Court on 1.2.2019 with a direction to the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, to take the mass petition and dispose of the said representation within an outer time of three months, after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the respondents including the Zamorin Raja of Calicut and other stakeholders. In this connection, we think it is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 3 and the operative portion of the judgment as hereunder:-

“3. Mr.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 10 submits with reference to the counter affidavit, that the said respondents do not have any objection at all in conducting enquiry by any Authority with regard to the alleged instance of misappropriation in connection with the gold plating of the flag mast. It is however stated that, certain other issues have also been projected and allegations have been raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5, which forms the subject matter of consideration in W.P.(C)No.32595/2016 before this Court and some issues are pending consideration in O.S.No.595/2018 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Calicut as well.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 to the above extent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondents herein and other stakeholders, if any, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

3. In obedience to the direction, the 4th respondent herein, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board after hearing all the parties concerned, passed an order on 13.5.2019 holding that he was inclined to initiate steps under Section 45 of the Act against the Managing Trustee of Sree Valayanad Devaswom regarding the gold plating of flag mast taking into consideration of the fact that the Managing Trustee had no objection at all in conducting enquiry by any authority.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Officer holding the post of Commissioner, whose appointment is under challenge at the instance of the first petitioner to hold the post in WP(C)18934/2017, had considered the aforesaid representation and passed the said order dated 13.5.2019, during the pendency of WP(C) 18934/2017. More so, the said officer had initiated proceedings against the first petitioner under Section 45 of the Act for removing him from the hereditary trusteeship of the Devaswom under him and the same