IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the proposal to relocate Bhasmakulam at Sabarimala, affirming compliance with the Master Plan, while the relocation of the Ganapathy idol was not pursued.

ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The issue involved in this SSCR and HPCR(S) relates to re- location of 'Bhasmakulam at Sabarimala Sannidhanam and placing the statue of Lord Ganapathy on the side of the trekking path.

2. On 21.08.2024, when SSCR No.59 of 2024 came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

“The High Power Committee for the Implementation of Sabarimala Master Plan, represented by its Chairman, Travancore Devaswom Board, Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003 is suo motu impleaded as the additional 7^th respondent.

2. This report filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala is regarding the proposal of the Travancore Devaswom Board for relocating Bhasmakkulam at Sabarimala Sannidhanam to Koprakkalam in between Valiyanadapanthal and Sabari Guest House and also placing an idol of Lord Kanana Ganapathy on the side of the trekking path.

3. In the report, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala has pointed out that the proposed constructions are without obtaining permission from the High Power Committee for the implementation of Sabarimala Master Plan. At the place identified for placing the idol of Lord Kanana Ganapathy, the trekking path is not having sufficient width for locating that idol. A few photographs of the Bhasmakkulam, the idol of Lord Kanana Ganapathy and also the place where that idol is proposed to be located form part of the report.

4. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court a written instructions dated 20.08.2024 from the 4^th respondent Executive Officer, Sabarimala.

5. On a specific query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the proposal regarding relocating the idol of Lord Kanana Ganapathy has already been intimated to the additional 7^th respondent High Power Committee. On 16.08.2024, however, the proposal regarding the shifting of Bhasmakkulam is yet to be intimated to the High Power Committee.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, from the 1^st respondent would submit that for the renovation of the Bhasmakkulam at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, more than Rs.1 Crore from the plan fund of the State was spent two years back, through the High Power Committee. In addition to that, the Government has already sanctioned Rs.70 lakhs for installing a water purification plant for Bhasmakkulam.

7. After referring to the written instructions received from the 4^th respondent Executive Officer, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that proposal for shifting Bhasmakkulam was informed to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala on 12.08.2024.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae for Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, would submit that as stated in the report, the Special Commissioner was informed about the proposal for shifting Bhasmakkulam only on 18.08.2024, by way of a written communication, which he received at 6.30 a.m. Immediately, thereafter, this report was filed before this Court on 19.08.2024.

9. On a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that at present, no activities are going on at Sabarimala Sannidhanam in connection with the shifting of Bhasmakkulam or relocating the idol of Lord Kanana Ganapathy.

10. Having considered the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order restraining the Board from proceeding further with the proposed shifting of Bhasmakkulam or relocating the idol of Lord Kanana Ganapathy at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, for a period of one month.

11. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 7^th respondent High Power Committee seek two weeks’ time to file affidavits on behalf of the Board and the High Power Committee.

12. Registry to incorp