Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.T. Ravikumar, Murali Purushothaman, JJ.
Chandu K. And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Travancore Devaswom Board Represented By Its Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 5855 OF 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2021
Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Sections 31, 35 – Extension of period of Temple Advisory Committee – Petitioners who are devotees of Ambalappuzha Sree Krishna Swami temple have approached this Court challenging extension of period of Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of temple by Travancore Devaswom Board. – As per bye laws for formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under Travancore Devaswom Board approved by this Court, term of office of said Committees is for a period of 2 years from date of approval of election by Devaswom Commissioner. – TAC of temple was granted approval by 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner w.e.f. 27.02.2019 and term of TAC was up to 27.02.2021 – There were complaints against the functioning of TAC. – Present TAC submitted application for extension of their period before 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner on 25.01.2021. – Extension of term was sought for by TAC on ground that, though work on western entrance of temple and adjoining gates have been completed by TAC, they want to make pavement of tiles at entrance gate more attractive. – They sought for extension of term of TAC by two years
Finding of the court: Reason stated by TAC in their request for extending term, which was allowed by the Board for a period of one year is that, the work on the western entrance of the temple and adjoining gates had been completed and they now want to make the pavement of tiles more attractive – Though court do not want to enumerate as to what are the developmental works in a temple which permit the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committees, which has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case, court have no hesitation to hold that the work of paving tiles at the entrance of the temple cannot be a reason for extension of term of the present TAC. – 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. – 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 works going on in temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be 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. – Reasons stated in Ext. P11 to extend the term of the TAC by the Board are not plausible or reasonable. – Court set aside Ext. P11 proceedings of the 1st respondent Board extending the term of the 5th respondent TAC. – Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take steps to conduct election to TAC of the temple in accordance with the provisions of clause 5 of the approved bye laws of the Board expeditiously as and when the situation becomes conducive for the conduct of election following the Covid-19 protocols, if any, issued by the Government. – Till election is held and approved by the Devaswom Commissioner in terms of clause 8 of approved bye laws, the respondents 1 to 3 shall constitute an adhoc Temple Advisory Committee for temple from among the members. – Needless to say that composition of such adhoc committee shall not be with persons who are members of outgoing TAC.
Result: Writ Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Murali Purushothaman, J.
The petitioners who are devotees of Ambalappuzha Sree Krishna Swami temple (hereinafter referred to as the 'temple') have approached this Court challenging the extension of the period of the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of the temple by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
2. As per the bye laws for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board approved by this Court, the term of office of the said Committees is for a period of 2 years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The TAC of the temple was granted approval by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner w.e.f. 27.02.2019 and the term of the TAC was up to 27.02.2021.
3. According to the petitioners, there were complaints against the functioning of the TAC. The present TAC submitted application for extension of their period before the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner on 25.01.2021. The extension of term was sought for by the TAC on the ground that, though the work on the western entrance of the temple and the adjoining gates have been completed by the TAC, they want to make the pavement of tiles at the entrance gate more attractive. They sought for extension of term of the TAC by two years.
4. The petitioners submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 27.01.2021 before the 4th respondent Administrative Officer of the temple, requesting not to extend the term of the present TAC. On the report called for on the request for extension of term, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner submitted Ext.P4 report to the Devaswom Commissioner stating that the construction of the Gopuram Vathil has been completed by the present TAC satisfactorily and that no works are pending to be completed by the TAC. In Ext.P4 report, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner observed that complaints are received against the present TAC with regard to the construction of the Gopuram Vathil, but the allegation levelled against the TAC could not be substantiated by the complainants with clear evidence.
5. On the basis of the report of respondents 2 to 4, the 1st respondent Board issued Ext.P5 order extending the period of the TAC by one year. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the term of the present TAC is extended by one year for the purpose of completion of the 'Gopuram Vathil' of the temple. It is challenging Ext.P5 that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.
6. The petitioners contend that the construction of the 'Gopuram Vathil' was completed and it was opened on 10.01.2021 by the President of the Board in the presence of other Board members, Devaswom authorities and TAC members and therefore, the reason stated in Ext. P5 for extension of the period of TAC is absolutely baseless and is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also refer to Ext.P6 information furnished to the third petitioner by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner under the Right to Information Act which states that no developmental activity or work is pending to be done by the TAC in the temple.
7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent Board issued Ext.P11 proceedings withdrawing Ext.P5 communication and extending the term of the TAC by one year stating that the Board does not find any reason to reject the request of the present TAC for extension of period to complete the ancillary development works in the temple.
8. The petitioners have amended the writ petition incorporating pleadings challenging Ext. P11. The petitioners contend that there is no development activity or any work pending to be carried out by the present TAC in the temple and that when the Board found the reason in Ext. P5 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, the same was substituted with another reason, which is equally unsustainable and issued on extraneous considerations.
9. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 wherein it is stated that the present TAC submitted a request to the Devaswom Comm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
