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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
Nandakumar – Petitioner 
Versus
Malabar Devaswom Board Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) No.237 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS.K.MOHANAKANNAN ADARSH MOHAN K.
For the Respondent: BY ADVS.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN BINOY VASUDEVAN SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998) MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013) MEERA P.(K/000191/2019) SMT. RANJANIE R, SC, MDB

The Commissioner must decide on renovation proposals in accordance with statutory provisions, ensuring no unauthorized demolition occurs.

Headnote:(A) Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Sections 100(2)(q), (r), (s) - Writ petition for mandamus - Petitioner sought inspection and restraint on demolition of temple structures without proper sanction - Respondents alleged necessity for renovation due to structural issues - Court directed the Commissioner to decide on the proposal for reconstruction within two months, maintaining interim order against demolition. (Paras 1, 30, 32)

(B) Jurisdiction of the Commissioner - The Commissioner has the authority to approve or disapprove renovation proposals under the Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions. (Paras 10, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a devotee, challenged the demolition of temple structures by the temple management, asserting that no renovations were necessary and that funds were being solicited without proper authority. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the need for the Commissioner to make a decision on the renovation proposal, ensuring adherence to legal requirements and providing an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. (Paras 30, 32)

Issues: The main issues included whether the temple structures required renovation and if the management had the authority to solicit funds for such work without approval. (Paras 1, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner must act in accordance with the law and consider all relevant statutory provisions before approving any renovation work. (Paras 10, 32)

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

(Anil K. Narendran, J.)

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple, Pallathery, Palakkad District, which is a controlled institution under the 1st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to conduct a site inspection at Sree Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple in order to find out whether there is any requirement or necessity for demolishing the temple structures for reconstructing the same; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 complaint dated 30.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner; a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 7 to 11 from proceeding with the demolition of the temple structures to effect reconstruction; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to ensure that public money is not collected by respondents 7 to 11 under the guise of reconstruction of the temple structures, without sanction from the 1st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Sree Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple is managed by a Trustee Board consisting of five hereditary trustees. The surviving hereditary trustees are arrayed as respondents 9 to 11. The 7th respondent is the Manager of the temple and the 8th respondent is the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees. In the writ petition, it is alleged that though the temple structures do not require any modifications or alterations, respondents 7 to 11 have decided to demolish and reconstruct the same, without any sanction from the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board or the 5th respondent Area Committee, Palakkad Division. Respondents 7 and 8 have published Ext.P1 notice in connection with Lakshadeepam scheduled on 15.12.2024, in which donations are solicited from the devotees for the renovation of temple structures. In the ‘Note’ in Ext.P1, it is stated that the Devaprasnam stressed the urgency of immediate renovation of the temple structures. As any delay in the renovation will lead to grave mishaps in the village, as well as to the devotees, the wholehearted support extended by the devotees is solicited. The bank account details with the mobile number are provided in Ext.P1 notice. After the publication of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 30.12.2024 before the 2nd respondent Commissioner. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a few photographs of the temple structures, in order to show that it requires no renovation or reconstruction. In the writ petition, it is pointed out that any construction or reconstruction of temple structures can be made under the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Rules, 1951, framed under Section 100(2)(q), (r) and (s) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.

3. On 07.01.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 5. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 6 and 7, returnable within three weeks. Having considered the materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, this Court granted an interim order dated 07.01.2025, directing the respondents not to demolish or reconstruct Sree Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple in Palakkad District, for a period of one month. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to file a counter affidavit within three weeks.

4. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit dated 25.01.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(e) documents. In the counter affidavit sworn to by the 7th respondent, who is the Manager of the temple, it is stated that he is holding charge as Manager/Executive Officer of eight temples which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom

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