IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Babilu Sankar - Appellant
Versus
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple - Respondent
WA Nos. 126, 146 of 2024
Decided On : 10-03-2025
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions filed for administrative and disciplinary reliefs in temple management - Court found no merit in the appellant's claims regarding mismanagement and indiscipline, affirming the Administrative Committee's authority and actions. (Paras 2 - 15 )
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court emphasized its limited role in reviewing ongoing disciplinary matters, stating that it will not interfere unless findings are perverse. (Paras 12 - 15 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Senior Clerk at the temple, raised complaints about administrative irregularities and faced disciplinary action for alleged indiscipline. He sought various writs against the temple's administrative committee.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the allegations of mismanagement were unsubstantiated and reaffirmed the Administrative Committee's decisions.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the disciplinary action against the appellant and the authority of the Administrative Committee to manage temple affairs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's allegations lacked convincing evidence, and the Administrative Committee acted within its authority, emphasizing that the High Court does not reappraise evidence in ongoing disciplinary matters.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5229 of 2023 and 17504 of 2023.
2. W.P.(C)No.5229 of 2023 is filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing respondents 1 and 3 to appoint an IAS or IPS Officer as the Executive Officer of the temple.
(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 3
rd
respondent to conduct an enquiry into the various acts done by the previous Executive Officer of the temple during the past two years and take necessary action on the basis of such enquiry report for rectifying the various acts of irregularities so far committed by the Executive Officer.
(iii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 3
rd
respondent to entrust a new experienced senior staff with the work related to “Vazhipad/Pooja” requiring ritualistic knowledge.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to remove Mr. Sanu mon K S from the service of the 1
st
respondent temple as directed by the State Police Chief, Kerala as per Exhibit P12 and Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala (Department of Home) as per Exhibit P13”.
3. W.P.(C)No.17504 of 2023 is also filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P4, P6, P-9 and P10 and quash Exts.P4 , P6, Ext.P9 and Ext.P10.
(ii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Allow cost of the petition to the petitioner.
(iv) To dispense with the production of English Translation of documents which are vernacular language.”
4. As per the common judgment dated 11.08.2023 the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions, issuing certain directions. Dissatisfied by the same, the appellant filed these writ appeals. The operative portion of that judgment reads thus:
“(a) W.P.(C)No.5229 of 2023 is closed, without acceding to the request made by the petitioner made therein; however, leaving him liberty to invoke any other appropriate remedy that he may have as per law.
(b) W.P.(C)No.17504 of 2023 is allowed, directing the competent Authority of the 3
rd
respondent – Administrative Committee to take up Exts.P3 and P5 objections of the petitioner against the Memo of Charges and Statement of Imputations respectively and dispose them of, after hearing him; thus culminating in an appropriate decision thereon, to be communicated to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(c) W.P.(C)No.17504 of 2023 is further ordered, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Executive Officer of the Temple with any application that he may choose for leave under the applicable heads as may be available to him, in terms of Ext.P9 therein; and if this is done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, it shall be considered in its proper perspective, adverting to his medical condition to be assessed, if so required through proper methods. A final decision in this regard shall be taken by the said Authority within a period of one month from the date on which the petitioner is to make his application in terms of the afore liberty.”
5. The appellant is working as a Senior Clerk in the service of the 1 st respondent Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and he claims that he is the President of BMS Karmachari Sangham which is an association of employees. According to the appellant, it has come to his notice that several acts of impurities were being carried out by various persons relating to th
The court upheld the authority of the Administrative Committee in temple management and affirmed the validity of ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
The governing body's power to appoint an executive officer is limited to exceptional cases for a fixed duration. Hereditary trustees retain authority over internal administration, including staff app....
Executive Officer empowered under HR&CE Act Rule 14 to implement disciplinary actions; failure to prove enquiry participation upholds dismissal.
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Executive Officer to a religious institution must be supported by objective reasons and proper application of mind by....
Point of Law : Commissioner does not have the power to approve or sanction a newly created post, etc., does not reflect the correct legal position and hence would stand overruled.
suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in office....
The court upheld the recognized rights of a religious community to perform rituals in a temple and deemed the ongoing civil proceedings as sufficient to adjudicate any disputes regarding those rights....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.