Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
THE ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 23304, 27286, 27288 of 2021
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21(3), 25, 26, 26(d), 226 - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Section 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57, and 63 to 69, 45, 28, 99 - Amendment Act, 1954 - Certiorari - Seeking to issue a writ of certiorari or such other order or direction declaring the inspection - Whether those provisions got deleted from statute book altogether, or invalidation has only a limited effect - Whether lack of notice affected validity of inspection - Whether those provisions got deleted from statute book altogether, or invalidation has only a limited effect - Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not barred merely because there is an alternative remedy of appeal. (Para 38)
Findings of Court:
Court have delved deep into materials placed on record in these matters - There is nothing to find even prima facie that there has been violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction was passed by Commissioner after hearing parties in detail - Ext.P6 in W.P (C) was issued by Deputy Commissioner invoking provisions in Ext.P1 scheme, as per which only administration of Temple in question is being carried out - Correctness or not of those orders is a matter to be looked into by Government in exercise of powers invested in it under Section 99 of HR&CE Act after analysing and appreciating materials in file, including disputed questions of fact - It may be uncharitable to say that such a statutory remedy is not effective - Suffice it to say that apprehension of petitioners, that Revisional Authority may not act fairly and judicially, is no reason to entertain a Writ Petition - A plea based on violation of any fundamental right of respective petitioners is rather not available in these cases - They do not call in question vires of any statutory provision - In said circumstances, petitioners should not have rushed to this Court at this stage - Hence, Court hold that W.P. (C) are also not maintainable.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
W.P. (C) No. 23304 of 2021
1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of 32 Temples, which are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity 'HR&CE Act'). The office of the petitioner functions at the Central Devaswom office near Valayanadu Temple, which is one among the said 32 Temples.
2. Going by the averments in the Writ Petition, on 05.10.2021, at around 11.30 a.m. the 2nd respondent along with a Deputy Commissioner and an Audit Inspector, inspected the said Central Devaswom Office. The 2nd respondent did so without giving any notice to the petitioner or his Personal Secretary, who supervises the functioning of the office. During the inspection, which went on till 4.30 p.m. the 2nd respondent and other officials behaved rudely and the whole episode was in the nature of a raid. The employees in the office were not permitted to contact the Personal Secretary of the petitioner or the Administrative Officer, who happened to be away due to illness. Advocate Sri.Rajesh Chandran, the lawyer of the petitioner, reached the office during that time, but he was not allowed to intervene saying that he did not have authorisation. Since the inspection was without any legal sanctity and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorari or such other order or direction declaring the inspection on 05.10.2021 was without authority and in violation of principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights of the petitioner and also to direct the 1st respondent-Government by a writ of mandamus to initiate appropriate action against the 2nd respondent for conducting such an illegal inspection.
3. On 01.11.2021, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice, Ext.P5, to the petitioner, presumably under Section 45 of the HR&CE Act asking him to submit his reply within seven days. Pointing out a number of discrepancies, infractions, and irregularities in the administration of the Temples under the petitioner, Ex.P5 notice was issued. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 seeking to amend the Writ Petition by adding additional statement of facts, grounds and reliefs. The petitioner produced Ext.P5 notice therewith. In the amended Writ Petition, it was further contended that since the Apex Court declared Section 21, among a few other provisions in the HR&CE Act, unconstitutional, the very inspection conducted by the 2nd respondent was without any sanctity of law. Therefore, all the actions initiated pursuant to such inspection are liable to be declared null and void. The 2nd respondent is an adjudicating authority in the inquiry being conducted with respect to the allegation regarding gold plating of the flag mast in Valayanad Bhagavathy Temple in which he has passed Ext.P1 order on 24.08.2021. It was in such circumstances that the inspection permeated with bias and malafides. Ext.P5 was issued by the 2nd respondent after having taken time from this Court on 29.10.2021. It is issued with an oblique motive and, to circumvent the Court proceedings. The inspection as well as Ext.P5 is illegal. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed amended reliefs as follows:
(aii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 dated 01.11.2011 and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
(aiii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the 2nd respondent from seeking to exercise powers under Section 21 of the Madras HR&CE Act, 1951 which has been declared void and unconstitutio
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
