The extension of a Temple Advisory Committee's term without addressing complaints against its members is arbitrary and unjust, warranting judicial intervention and direct administration by the governing Board.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

W.P.(C) No.12549 of 2025 is filed by a devotee of Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu-Sree Bhagavathy Temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P8 Order No.R.O.C 4033/23/NS2 dated 10.01.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent on behalf of the 2^nd respondent as it is arbitrary, illegal and unjust;

(ii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 request made by the petitioner and others dated 06.01.2025 as expeditiously as possible within a time period that may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

(iii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 7^th respondent to consider Ext. P6 complaint filed by the petitioner and to take necessary action on the same as expeditiously as possible within a time period that may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

(iv) to issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2^nd respondent to dissolve the 7^th respondent Temple advisory committee and to take steps to elect a new advisory committee to the Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu-Sree Bhagavathy Temple.”

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the Petitioner is a devotee of the Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu-Sree Bhagavathy Temple under the Ashtamangalam Sub Group in Punalur Group of the Travancore Devaswom Board. He is an ardent devotee and participant in the day-to-day rituals in the temple. The 7^th respondent Temple Advisory Committee came into existence in February 2023, and its term expired on 25.02.2025. The petitioner and other devotees have objected the activities of the committee, where they have flouted the Bye-Law published by the 1^st respondent Devaswom Board. There are allegations of financial mismanagement and violation of the rituals by the members of the Committee. Owing to dissent among the members of the committee, respondents 13 to 19 resigned from the committee as members and issued Ext. P2 Resignation Letter dated 13.11.2024 to the 2^nd respondent. In the Devaprasnom conducted in the year 2024, it was found that there are some defects in the Kodimaram. The Committee, without any discussions in the General body and in their own interest, removed the base of the Kodimaram. The petitioners and others have filed complaints against the affairs of the committee as seen in Ext. P5 and Ext. P6. The 3^rd respondent, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, without considering any of these aspects, extended the term of the committee for a further period of six months by Ext. P8 order. The same is against the Bye Law of the Board and the Law laid down by this Court in Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2021 (3) KHC 379] and in DBP No. 17 of 2025 [2025:KER:20024]. Hence, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

3. On 27.03.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioner to file an application to implead the State of Kerala represented by the Special Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department and also the Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit as additional respondents in the writ petition. The learned