Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
The Temple Advisory Committee Of Moozhikkulam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
Muralee Krishna, J.
This DBP is registered suo motu, vide proceedings dated 30.08.2024, based on a complaint dated 15.08.2024 submitted by the Temple Advisory Committee of Thiru Moozhikkulam temple, addressed to a learned Judge of this Court, pointing out inadequate facilities in the said temple, which is under the management of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board.
2. In the complaint, it was alleged that though the Travancore Devaswom Board spends lakhs of rupees for the construction of temporary roofing and towards electricity expenses, no sufficient parking space was made for the vehicles of the devotees coming to Thiru Moozhikkulam temple. Some suggestions are also made in the complaint regarding the infrastructure facilities to be made in the temple.
3. On 02.09.2024, when this matter came up for consideration, the 7th respondent Temple Advisory Committee was suo motu transposed as the petitioner/complainant. Notice was ordered to the petitioner/complainant by speed post returnable within four weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 6.
The Travancore Devaswom Board has a statutory duty to ensure proper facilities for devotees and manage temple affairs effectively, akin to trusteeship.
Section 62 of Act deals with vesting of administration in Board.
Only the Temple Advisory Committee can conduct religious rites and collect contributions in temples managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, as per statutory provisions.
The court established that the Cochin Devaswom Board must protect temple funds and properties, ensuring proper management and preventing exploitation through unauthorized online platforms.
A writ of mandamus requires the existence of a legal right and a statutory duty, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The extension of a Temple Advisory Committee's term without addressing complaints against its members is arbitrary and unjust, warranting judicial intervention and direct administration by the govern....
Only the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act can conduct activities and collect funds in the temple; unauthorized committees are prohibited from interfering.
A writ of mandamus can only be issued when there is a clear statutory duty and legal right, which was not established by the petitioners in this case.
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Travancore Devaswom Board to manage temple properties, perform traditional rites, and ensure compliance with statutory duties an....
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
