Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S.
Secretary, Kunchachaman Samithi Sakthikulangara – Appellant
Versus
Travancore Devaswom Board, Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
The issue involved in DBP No.9 of 2025 and W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025 centres around the offering of Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1200ME (2025). The dispute is between the petitioner in the writ petition, namely, Kunjachaman Samithi, Sakthikulangara, and the 4th respondent, namely, Kara Devaswom Committee of Sree Sakthikulangara Dharma Sastha Temple, Kollam.
2. DBP No.9 of 2025 has been registered based on Report No.3 of 2025 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.55 of 2024 made by the Secretary of Kunjachaman Samithi, Sakthikulangara, claiming the privilege of offering Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with the annual festival of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. During the pendency of the said DBP, Kunjachaman Samithi, Sakthikulangara, filed W.P.(C)No.9072 of 2025, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash order No.ROC 9077/SAB dated 03.12.2024 of the Travancore Devaswom Board, granting the privilege of offering Kodikkoora and Kodikkayar in connection with t
The court ruled that the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot grant permissions for rituals that are not part of traditional practices, emphasizing the need for transparency and the necessity of full dis....
Only the Temple Advisory Committee can conduct religious rites and collect contributions in temples managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, as per statutory provisions.
A writ of mandamus requires the existence of a legal right and a statutory duty, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
A writ of mandamus can only be issued when there is a clear statutory duty and legal right, which was not established by the petitioners in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Travancore Devaswom Board to manage temple properties, perform traditional rites, and ensure compliance with statutory duties an....
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 appr....
Only the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act can conduct activities and collect funds in the temple; unauthorized committees are prohibited from interfering.
The court established that the Cochin Devaswom Board must protect temple funds and properties, ensuring proper management and preventing exploitation through unauthorized online platforms.
Point of Law : Section 31A of Act deals with formation of Temple Advisory Committees.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
