A registered society lacks authority as a Temple Advisory Committee and cannot claim ownership of temple properties, as these must be managed in trust for the deity, emphasizing fiduciary responsibilities and financial transparency.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

[DBP No.41/2022 & WP(C) No.15798/2023]

The Ernakulam Kshetra Kshema Samithi ('Samithi' for the sake of brevity), a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 was accorded the status of a Temple Advisory Committee by the Cochin Devaswom Board ('Board' for the sake of brevity) for accomplishing certain construction activities in the Ernakulam Shiva Temple, one of the holiest temples in the State of Kerala. Disputes arose between the Board and the Samithi with regard to the sharing of income derived by leasing out the properties of the Devaswom as permitted by this Court, handling of accounts by the Samithi and its functioning. Finally, the Board proceeded to issue Ext.P5 order on 27.04.2023 indicating its decision to initiate steps to elect a new Temple Advisory Committee in terms of the bye-laws of the Board. This action did not find favor with the Samithi. Furthermore, while practically functioning as the Temple Advisory Committee, there was a sharing arrangement between the Board and the Samithi as per which, the income received from the leasing out of the Ernakulathappan Ground was permitted to be shared between the Board and the Samithi. The Board by Ext. P6 order dated 12.4.2023 put an end to the sharing arrangement as well. These actions have led the Samithi to approach this Court seeking to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the Board. During the pendency of the writ petition an application for amendment was filed as I.A. No. 3 of 2023, seeking to challenge Ext. P6 order which was omitted earlier. The said application was allowed on 12.10.2023.

2. In the meantime, a suo motu proceeding was initiated as DBP No. 41/2022 by this Court in terms of the directions issued by this Court in order dated 29.07.2022 in DBP No. 31/2022 regarding the conduct of Trade Fairs in Ernakulathappan Ground by the Samithi. We shall decide the issues raised in the writ petition as well as the DBP by passing a common judgment.

3. Assertions and contentions of the Samithi in the Writ Petition:

a) The contention of the Samithi in the writ petition is that they have been administering the affairs of the Shiva Temple from the year 2016 onwards. It is stated that the Committee was granted the status of a Temple Advisory Committee by Ext. P1 order issued by the Board on 23.01.2016. The grant of such status was subsequently approved by this Court by Ext. P2 order dated 16.05.2016 in DBA No. 4 of 2016 consequent to which Ext. P3 order was issued by the Board. It is further asserted that the functioning of the Samithi, in its capacity as the Temple Advisory Committee, formally commenced only upon the issuance of Ext. P3 order by the Cochin Devaswom Board.

b) Following the conferment of such status, the Samithi has undertaken numerous construction and developmental activities in relation to the temple and its premises. The accounts of the Samithi are regularly audited and that copies of such audited accounts are forwarded to the Sub Registrar in compliance with the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. In addition, the Devaswom audit as well as Local Fund Audit are being conducted periodically, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in its functioning. By order bearing No. A5-1471 dated 31.01.2017 issued by the Board, the management of the Ernakulathappan Ground and the adjoining hall was entrusted to the Samithi, along with the responsibility for their maintenance and beautification. The income gen