Point of Law : Once misappropriation has come to the notice, necessary remedial steps were taken by the Bharana Samithy - But fact remained that there occurred such a huge loss of properties of the Deity.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioners claiming to be devotees of Sree Devi Bhuvaneswari of Manakkattu Devi Temple, Pallipad filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to assume the management of the said Temple under the provisions of Section 37 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”). A direction to conduct an enquiry as envisaged under Section 38 of the Act, in prelude to such assumption is also sought for.

2. The petitioners would contend that the Temple was included as Sl.No.381 in the list of grant-in-aid Temples administered by the then Rulers of Travancore and therefore it should have been included in the list of incorporated Devaswoms contained in Annexure-I of the Act. Accidentally it was omitted. Now, the Temple is being administered by a Devaswom Bharana Samithy. There occurred repeated instances of mismanagement in the affairs of the Temple. Assets of the Temple, including Thiruvabharanam, were misappropriated by the persons in the helm of affairs of the Temple. A crime was also registered regarding the loss of Thiruvabharanam of the Deity. Respondents No.6 and 7, who were the then office bearers of the Bharana Samithy, are the accused. Ext.P5, a copy of the audit report dated 07.12.2016 also reveals the misappropriation. In such circumstances, there occurred demands for assumption of the Temple by the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent-Deputy Devaswom Commissioner initiated an enquiry, but Ext.P3 report was to the effect that the authorities of the Temple administration did not provide the accounts and records for verification and therefore the enquiry could not be done. The 1st respondent did not therefore take any steps in the matter of mismanagement of the Temple affairs. Therefore, the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 4 and 5 entered appearance through their learned counsel and filed a counter-affidavit. Respondents 6 and 7 did not choose to file any counter.

4. Respondents 8 and 9 got themselves impleaded for which they have filed I.A.No.3 of 2022. Similarly, respondents 10 and 11 got impleaded for which they have filed I.A.No.4 of 2020. These respondents also did not choose to file any counter affidavit.

5. On 16.11.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board made available for our perusal Volume I, Part II of Travancore Devaswom Board Manual printed and published in the year 1936. Appendix XIX to the Manual contains the list of grant-in-aid Devaswoms. Sl.No.381 in Appendix XIX is the 4th respondent-Manakkad Sree Devi Bhuvaneswari Temple.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, 8 and 9, and also respondents 10 and 11.

7. Reliefs claimed are in relation to the administration of the 4th respondent Temple. When the petitioners claim to be devotees, their locus to maintain the writ petition cannot be disputed. The petitioners have three-fold contentions; the first is that the 4th respondent-Temple was a grant-in-aid temple and hence it is an incorporated Devaswom, but due to some accidental slip, it is omitted from Appendix I to the Act; secondly, that the Bharana Samithi comprising representatives of four NSS Karayogams administers the Temple, which implies that it is a Hindu Religious Endowment as defined in Section 3(c) of the Act and thirdly, that overwhelming materials are there evidencing mismanagement of the Temple administration. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st respondent is obliged, in view of