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
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
The Commissioner must decide on renovation proposals in accordance with statutory provisions, ensuring no unauthorized demolition occurs.
The court emphasized that hereditary trustees must have their rights respected and that renovation approvals must comply with legal provisions, allowing disputes to be resolved in appropriate proceed....
The court ruled that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act does not permit the formation of a committee to oversee the actions of a hereditary trustee.
Trustees of religious institutions must manage affairs in accordance with trust terms and statutory mandates, ensuring proper administration and facilities for worship.
The Travancore Devaswom Board must ensure proper maintenance of temples, and the Temple Advisory Committee is authorized to collect funds for renovations under strict compliance with statutory proced....
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....
Only the Temple Advisory Committee can conduct religious rites and collect contributions in temples managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, as per statutory provisions.
Statutory remedies must be pursued before seeking court intervention under Article 226.
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....
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.