SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ.
Suo Motu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department & Ors. - Respondents
DBP No. 44 of 2024
Decided On : 06-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Sri. S. Rajmohan, Senior Government Pleader by Sri. G. Biju, SC, Travancore Devaswom Board by Sri. K.P. Sudheer, SC, Cochin Devaswom Board, Smt. Sayujya Radhakrishnan.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the appointment of Devaswom Commissioners must strictly adhere to the statutory provisions, ensuring judicial oversight in the process.

Headnote:

Appointment - Devaswom Commissioner - Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 - The court discussed Sections 74A and 13B, emphasizing the appointment process for Devaswom Commissioners, highlighting the necessity of adherence to statutory provisions and the role of the court in overseeing appointments.

Fact of the Case:

The court registered a suo motu case regarding the administration of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, focusing on the appointment of Devaswom Commissioners and the implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan due to previous irregularities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointments of Devaswom Commissioners must comply with the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and emphasized the importance of the court's oversight in these appointments.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appointments of Devaswom Commissioners were being conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements outlined in the relevant sections of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of Devaswom Commissioners must follow the specific provisions of the Act, ensuring that the process is transparent and subject to judicial oversight.

Result: The court directed that all appointments of Devaswom Commissioners must be made with its concurrence and that any vacancies must be reported promptly.

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This DBP is registered suo motu, in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 25.03.2024 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, in the matter of Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board - regarding the constitution of High Power Committee for Implementation of Sabarimala Master Plan, appointment of Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, appointment of Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board and also matters in relation to the appointment of Chief Commissioner, in the absence of an elected Board in the Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board and also appointment of Devaswom Commissioners.

2. O.P.No.3821 of 1990 was registered suo motu, vide order dated 11.04.1990 in the matter of Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board, on the illegalities, embezzlements and irregularities in the administration noticed during consideration of audit reports. In that original petition, various orders were passed by this Court in respect of temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board. Orders have been passed regarding the constitution of High Power Committee for implementation of Sabarimala Master Plan, appointment of a District Judge as Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, appointment of an Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board. Orders have also been passed in the matter of appointment of the Chief Commissioner, in the absence of an elected Board in Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board.

3. In the matter of appointment of Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, this Court passed a detailed order dated 26.06.2024 in this DBP – Suo Motu v. State of Kerala [2024 (4) KHC 574]. By that order, having considered the submissions made at the Bar on the service particulars and other aspects of two Additional Secretaries to Government included in the panel and also the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board regarding the preference of the Board among the persons included in the panel, this Court found that Sri. C.V. Prakash, Additional Secretary to Government, Home Department, who had experience in the Vigilance Department for about 4 years as Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary and experience in the Home Department for about 3 years as Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary, can be appointed as Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, on deputation basis, till 18.05.2025, who shall also act as the Member Secretary of the High Power Committee for implementation of Sabarimala Master Plan. The Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to issue formal orders in that regard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks. A copy of that order was directed to be placed on record in this DBP, along with a memo filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board. Nearly one month after the said order dated 26.06.2024, the Government issued an order for deployment of Sri. C.V. Prakash as Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, on deputation basis, subject to a formal order being issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Board has issued a formal order to that effect on 27.07.2024, and Sri. C.V. Prakash has already taken charge as Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board.

4. In the order dated 26.06.2024 in this DBP, this Court noticed that the term of deputation of an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to Government as the Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, under 74A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 is over and a requisition has been made before the State Government.

5. On 15.07.2024, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions with specific reference to the provisions contained in Section 74A of the Act. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the order dated 15.07.2024 read t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top