The court affirmed that ongoing inquiries by the Ombudsman must be allowed to conclude before judicial intervention is warranted, emphasizing the distinction between public interest complaints and personal grievances.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners, who are devotees of Karikode Bhagavathy Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 2^nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Board to constitute a special enquiry team to look into the matters mentioned in Ext.P2 representation dated 01.04.2025 made before the President of the 2^nd respondent Board and take appropriate action.

2. The 1^st petitioner, along with another devotee of Karikode Bhagavathy Temple, had approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.34130 of 2024 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the 6^th respondent Sub Group Officer to disband the Temple Advisory Committee of Karikode Bhagavathy Temple and to conduct election to constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee for the said temple. In that writ petition the grievance of the writ petitioners was against the continuance of the Temple Advisory Committee, the term of which had expired on 04.07.2024. Various irregularities alleged to have been committed by the then Temple Advisory Committee were also pointed out in W.P.(C)No.34130 of 2024. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 17.12.2024 by directing the 5^th respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to finalise the proceedings already initiated for electing new members in the Temple Advisory Committee of Karikode Bhagavathy Temple, strictly in accordance with law, within the time limit stipulated in the notification already issued. In Ext.P1 order it was made clear that till a new Temple Advisory Committee is elected the entire activities in the temple shall be conducted by the 6^th respondent Sub Group Officer, under the direct supervision of the 5^th respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. The Assistant Audit Officer, Aluva was directed to complete the audit of accounts of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee as well as the Ad-hoc Committee, within the prescribed time limit.

3. As stated in the writ petition, pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment election to the Temple Advisory Committee was conducted and the members of the new Temple Advisory Committee were elected. The 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 01.04.2025 before the President of the 2^nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board pointing out various illegal activities by the temple employees, along with the 6^th respondent Sub Group Officer. The 1^st petitioner submitted an application dated 06.03.2025 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to which he received Ext.P3 reply dated 28.03.2025 by the Public Information Officer in the office of the 5^th respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. The said application was in respect of the auction conducted in connection with the annual festival of the temple for the year 2024. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner submitted a complaint before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, which was numbered as Complaint No.117 of 2025, in which Ext.P4 proceedings dated 15.04.2025 directing the 2^nd respondent Board and the 3^rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, after conducting an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer and by the Audit Wing and the said complaint was posted on 27.05.2025. In the writ petition it is alleged that even after Ext.P4, no effective enquiry is conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer into the complaint made by the petitioner, which is pending consideration before the learned Ombudsman as Complaint No.117 of 2025