IMPORTANT POINT
The extension of a Temple Advisory Committee's term must comply with statutory provisions and prior court rulings, and cannot be granted for minor works.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam and a former member of the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, which is under the management of the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the term of the 6^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, in which respondents 7 to 17 were office bearers/members, stands extended for a period of six months for the purpose of undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’ in the premise of the said temple. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate steps to constitute a new Advisory Committee as envisaged under Section 31A of Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 .

2. On 06.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 5 and 18. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 6 to 17, returnable by 07.02.2025. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions, who was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 and also that relating to the approval, if any, granted by the Board for undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’ of Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam.

3. On 07.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025. On 11.02.2025, respondents 6 and 7 entered appearance through counsel. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 8 to 14. This Court perused the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025, whereby the term of the 6^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee stands extended for a period of six months from 08.02.2025, for the purpose of undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’. The document marked as Ext.P3 is two photographs of that ’Kalithattu’. By a detailed order dated 11.02.2025, this Court stayed the operation of Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 for a period of one week. In the said order it was made clear that the entire activities in the temple shall be managed departmentally by the Sub Group Officer, under the supervision of the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the order dated 11.02.2025 read thus;

“4. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the maintenance work of Kalithattu is only a small work, which can be completed within one week. Therefore, the reason stated in Ext.P1 order is one which cannot be sustained in law, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KHC 663]

5. From the file handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, we notice that the request for extension of term by the 6^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee is one made on 21.01.2025, before the Sub Group Officer, Kazhakoottam Devaswom, based on which the Sub Group Officer submitted a report dated 21.01.2025 [the date of the said letter available at page No.5 of the file is corrected as 21.01.2025 instead of 23.01.2025], based on which the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor submitted a report dated 22.01.2025 before the Devaswom Commissioner.

6. Page No.155 of the file contains an endorsement made by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, [P&SGRC], granting extension of term by six months to the Temple Advisory Committee. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that the