Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1993
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, G. GIRISH, JJ
PRABHAKARAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
Malabar Devaswom Board – Respondent
WP(C) 31960/2023
K.MOHANAKANNAN H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
Hereditary trustees have rights that must be acknowledged and considered in the appointment of non-hereditary trustees under the Malabar Devaswom Board's procedures.
Headnote:
Trusteeship - Hereditary Trustee Rights - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Sections 39(5), 47(3) - This case revolves around the appointment of non-hereditary trustees and the rights of hereditary trustees, emphasizing the importance of notice and fair procedure in the appointment process under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenge a notice for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees for a temple, asserting their rights as hereditary trustees under the Malabar Devaswom Board’s jurisdiction, and seek a recognition of hereditary trusteeship for the 1st petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner must consider the 1st petitioner's claim for hereditary trusteeship while also ensuring any non-hereditary trustee appointments adhere strictly to established legal frameworks and eligibility criteria.
Issues: The main issues include the legality of appointing non-hereditary trustees without recognizing a hereditary trustee and whether the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunity to present their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that hereditary trustees should be given an opportunity to express their views regarding the necessity of appointing non-hereditary trustees, even if the Act does not explicitly require their concurrence.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with a directive for the Deputy Commissioner to recognize the hereditary rights of the petitioners and consider their request within three months.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are members of ‘Plavazhi Tharawad’, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice dated 01.09.2023 issued by the 6th respondent Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board, to one Manikandan, who made an application for appointment as non-hereditary trustee of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, for verification of documents on 11.09.2023. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus, commanding the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner, Kozhikode to decide the claim of the 1st petitioner as hereditary trustee of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, within a timeframe to be fixed by this Court and till such time, defer the appointment of a non-hereditary trustees, based on Ext.P3. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P1 as per the provision of Section 47 (3) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 and to communicate the order to the petitioners, within a timeframe to be fixed by this Court and to defer the appointment of non-hereditary trustees pursuant to Ext.P3; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 5th respondent not to appoint non-hereditary trustee and without deciding the issue regarding the hereditary trusteeship.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
1st petitioner is the seniormost member of Plavazhi Tharavadu, which is having hereditary trusteeship of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple. The 2nd petitioner is a member of the family and entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee. When a notification was published for appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the temple, Ext.P1 representation was filed before respondents 1 to 4 by the petitioners and two other members of the Tharavadu stating that the 1st petitioner is the seniormost member and entitled to be approved as hereditary trustee. The grievance of the petitioners is that, instead of deciding that issue, an interview notice was issued by the 6th respondent Inspector for considering both non- hereditary trusteeship and hereditary trusteeship on the same day, as evident from Exts.P2 and P3. This was objected to by the petitioners by submitting Exts.P4 and P5 representations by the petitioners. In the writ petition, it is alleged that without notice to the hereditary trustee, the Board and its officials are attending to appoint active politicians as non-hereditary trustees of the temple.
3. On 29.09.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 6, urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 7th respondent, returnable within three weeks. This Court passed an interim order dated 29.09.2023. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that order read thus;
“3. Plavazhi Balan Nair, who was the hereditary trustee of Sree Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, Ottappalam, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, died on 06.07.2020. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the next senior most member of the 'Plavazhi tharavadu' is yet to be approved as the hereditary trustee by the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board seeks time to get instructions on the procedure that is being followed for filling up the vacancy of hereditary trustees in the temples which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board.
5. Regarding the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in Sree Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, Palakkad, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that after verification of records by the 6th respondent-Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board, the applications will have to be placed before the 5th respondent Area Committee for its decision.
6. The learned Standing Counsel seeks time to get instructions on the pr
