IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2206 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER IN DBP NO.1 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN DBP:

RADHA WARASSIAR, AGED 80 YEARS W/O.LATE NARAYAN WARRIER, PISHARIKOVIL WARRIAM, EROD WEST, THRIPUNITHURA-682 306.

BY ADVS.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN NIDHI BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN DBP:

M.G.JAGADEESH, NAME OF FATHER, AGE AND ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT DEVASWAM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA-680 001.

R BY SRI K.P.SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL , COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 80 years, has filed this Contempt Case (C) invoking the provisions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent herein, who is the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, Thripunithura, for wilful disobedience of the writ issued by this Court in Annexure A1 order dated

11.02.2019 in DBP No.1 of 2019.

2. On 04.01.2022, when this contempt case came up for consideration, this Court noticed that as per paragraphs 4 and 5 of Annexure A1 order, the grievance projected by the petitioner in DBP No.1 of 2019 was regarding non- disbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional hands during the festival of the year 2018. However, after Anneuxre A1 judgment, the petitioner submitted Annexure A2 representation dated 28.03.2019, in which her grievance was as to non-disbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional hands during the festival of the year 2019. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the said order read thus;

“2. After Annexure A1 judgment, the petitioner submitted Annexure A2 representation dated 28.03.2019, in which her grievance was as to non- disbursement of the amount alleged to have spent by her for deploying additional hands during the festival of the year 2019.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, on instructions, would submit that after Annexure A1 order in DBP No.1 of 2019, the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.02.2019, before the respondent Assistant Commissioner of Devaswom and that petition was allowed by the order dated 15.03.2019 ordering disbursement of an amount of Rs.1,400/-. However, the petitioner did not accept that amount. It is thereafter that she has filed Annexure A2 complaint dated 28.03.2019.

4. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

5. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that, in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and proper