IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a compromise decree is binding on parties involved, and a temple advisory committee cannot re-agitate settled issues regarding ritual performance and fund collection without appropriate authority.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This writ petition is one filed by Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi, the Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act , 1950. The said temple is under the management of the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs;

''i. To declare that the Ext.P2 compromise decree is not binding on the deity, petitioner Samithi or the devotees of the temple;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to perform the Paraeduppu Ezhunillippu of the Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple scheduled to be started from 8^th of Makaram Malayalam month by issuing receipts get sealed by the Devaswom Board;

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the Jeevatha belongs to the temple alone shall be used to take Devi in procession at Paraeduppu Ezhunnullippu; and iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to ensure that the entire income from the Paraeduppu Ezhunnullippu of the Devi shall be deposited in the Devaswom to be accounted and to be utilized for the development of the temple;

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, which is an incorporated temple included in the schedule of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which is under the administration of the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. In the year 1998, the 4^th respondent Kadasseri Mumila NSS Karayogam filed O.S.No.16 of 1998 against the Devaswom Board to declare their right to conduct various rituals in the temple, which stood dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 09.09.2005. In appeal, the Devaswom Board entered into a compromise with the 4^th respondent, by granting them the relief of conducting the Paraeduppu Ezhunullippu of the Devi for 5 days in Makarom Malayalam month of every year. The 4^th respondent relinquished all their claims except the Paraeduppu. According to the petitioner, the said compromise is not binding either on the deity or the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi or the devotees of the temple, as they were not parties to the suit or appeal. The petitioner is undertaking all the development and renovation works of the temple with the active participation of the devotees and the Devaswom authorities have acknowledged that aspect many times. The petitioner, in November 2015, made an offering of a new Jeevatha to the temple to take Devi in procession while ezhunullippu. There are more than 1700 Para used to be taken in a year and the amount collected per Para is Rs.190/-. Almost all the devotees of the temple made complaints to the Devaswom Board and the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi for permitting a particular community to conduct Paraeduppu of the temple and permitting them to appropriate the entire amount collected from it without making any payment to the temple or to the Devaswom Board. The petitioner Samithi requested the Devaswom Board to permit it to perform Paraeduppu Ezhunullippu of the temple, from the year 2016, with an undertaking that they will issue the receipts countersigned or sealed by the Devaswom Board and the entire amount collected from the Paraeduppu would be utilised for the development of the temple under the supervision of the Board. But, respondents 1 to 3 are not responding to that request and, on the other hand, extending help to the 4^th respondent NSS Karayogam.

3. On 27.01.2016, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice was ordered to respondents 3 and 4.

4. By the order dated