Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
N.V. Ganapathi Namboothiri – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 29277, 29370 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Devaswom - Management of Hindu Religious Institutions - Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, Section 38, Section 37 - The court discussed the legal provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, specifically Section 38 and Section 37, and their applicability to the management of Hindu religious institutions. The court emphasized the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation, as well as the role of the High Court as the guardian of the Deity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29277 of 2023 sought a writ of mandamus to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and to proceed under Section 37 to make proper arrangements for effective management of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29370 of 2023 sought a writ of mandamus to dispose of a petition and a writ of certiorari to quash notices issued by the Municipality regarding constructions in Pariyaram Sree Subrahmanyaswamy Temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought in both writ petitions, which were beyond the scope of the general direction contained in the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018, were not legally maintainable. The court also dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable.
Issues: The issues involved the legality and maintainability of the relief sought in the writ petitions, the applicability of the general direction contained in the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018, and the jurisdiction of the District Judge to consider the petitions made for conducting enquiries into the affairs of the respective temples.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought in the writ petitions, which were beyond the scope of the general direction contained in the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018, were not legally maintainable. The court also dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. W.P. (C) No. 29277 of 2023: The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and proceed under Section 37 to make proper arrangements for effective management of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple; to take appropriate action as per the directions contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 667 - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 and take back the administration of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No. 893 and appoint an appropriate authority to administer the affairs of that temple and direct the 3rd respondent District Judge, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 in terms of the direction contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] and file a report before this Court, after conducting an enquiry.
1.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Komabanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is having 1.87 Acres of property in Old Survey No. 386/4 of Kombanad Village, was being managed by the family of the petitioner. When the father of the petitioner was finding it difficult to manage the temple, as he was managing several other temples, he executed Ext.P1 agreement dated 24.04.1956 with the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No. 893 and handed over the management of the temple to SNDP Sakha. In that agreement, it is provided that if the management of the temple is not as per the conditions mentioned therein, the petitioner’s father have every right to take back the management, without serving any notice. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, in the year 1956 some SNDP Sakha members abandoned the idol of Sree Dharma Sastha into a well and stopped poojas. Upon serious objections, they retrieved the broken idol from the well and re-consecrated the same in the temple and started poojas. Thereafter, during 1970s, the 4th respondent without conducting any devaprasnam and thantric rituals, removed the deity of Sree Dharma Sastha and thrown it to Paniyeli river and installed the idol of Lord Ayyappa in that temple. The 4th respondent constructed an Industrial Training College (ITC) in the temple property and also started conducting marriages in the temple, in spite of the fact that marriages are not to be performed in Sastha Temples. Since the 4th respondent is mismanaging the temple in all respects, in total violation of the provisions of Ext.P1 agreement, affecting the divinity of the temple, the petitioner’s father issued notice to the 4th respondent, claiming repossession of the management of the temple, and thereafter filed O.S. No. 231 of 1981 (Ext.P2 plaint) before the Munsiff Court, Perumabavur, seeking cancellation of that agreement and for other consequential reliefs. In that suit, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P3 written statement dated 23.10.1981. Since the petitioner’s father could not proceed with that suit due to his illness, it was dismissed for default by Ext.P4 judgment dated 06.11.1984.
1.2. In the writ petition, it is stated that, In Ext.P5 order in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] the Apex Court held that the protection of assets with regards to shrines irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for courts. The Apex Court directed every District Judge throughout India to examine such matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and sent a report to the concerned High Court. Such a report can be treated as Public Interest Litigation, on the judicial side, and such direction may be issued by the High Court, as may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact situation. Pointing out the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for relief sought in writ petitions to be within the scope of the general direction contained in the order of the Apex Court dated ....
Writ petitions concerning the administration of religious institutions must adhere to the statutory framework provided by relevant laws, rather than seeking relief through Article 226.
Statutory remedies must be pursued before seeking court intervention under Article 226.
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 D....
Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for summary eviction of alleged encroachers from private temple properties, as such matters fall under civil court jurisdiction and require the impleadment of nece....
Only the Temple Advisory Committee can conduct religious rites and collect contributions in temples managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, as per statutory provisions.
Writ petitions seeking eviction from private temple lands under Land Conservancy Act are not maintainable without impleading Ooralans as necessary parties, as Act provisions apply only to Devaswom Bo....
The court reinforced that the Temple Advisory Committee must fulfill statutory duties regarding financial account audits while confirming the limit of writ jurisdiction to prevent unlawful directives....
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
