IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. Jayakumar, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JJ
Ravikumar M – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28828 OF 2025|WP(C) NO. 29078 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek intervention in temple election. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners challenging removal from managing committee. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. reliefs sought include quashing of decisions. (Para 9) |
| 4. challenges to maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. key issue on maintainability against a private devaswom. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. criteria for public function in writing a writ. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. establishing if thiruvambadi devaswom discharges public functions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. court finds no grounds for writ jurisdiction. (Para 34) |
| 9. elections of the devaswom deemed a private matter. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 10. writ petitions are dismissed; alternative relief advised. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
These two Writ Petitions are preferred seeking interference in the election process scheduled to be held on 28.09.2025 in the Thiruvambadi Sri Krishna Temple, Thrissur. W.P(C).No.28828/2025 is filed by one Ravikumar and two others. W.P(C).No.29078/2025 is filed by one Jayachandran and two others.
2. The grievance projected and the reliefs claimed in both these Writ Petitions are identical, and therefore, these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. W.P(C).No.28828/2025 is taken as the lead case and the parties and exhibits are referred to as stated in the said Writ Petition.
3. It is stated in the Writ Petitions that the petitioners are devotees of the Thiruvambadi Sri Krishna Temple, Thrissur. The petitioners are also members of the general body of the 3rd respondent - Thiruvambadi Devaswom, which is a controlled institution under the 2nd respondent - Cochin Devaswom Board.
4. It is pleaded in the Writ Petitions that the temple is under the control and management of the Thiruvambadi Devaswom as per Ext.P1 bye-law. As per the stipulations contained in Ext.P1 bye-law, a Hindu who owns property in any of the three Desoms – Chirakkal, Angadi and Poonkunnam, and who is a resident thereof for a minimum period of ten years and who has attained the age of twenty-one years is entitled to be a member of the general body of the Devaswom. The management of the Devaswom is vested in a Managing Committee consisting of 19 members elected from the general body from time to time. It is stated that the petitioners are ardent devotees of the deities of the temple and are interested in the welfare of the Thiruvambadi Devaswom.
5. On 21.02.2025, the petitioners submitted Ext.P2 letter before the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent-Devaswom, highlighting that the President of the Thiruvambadi Devaswom, namely P.S. Sundar Menon, should not be permitted to resume the duties as President. It is stated that, Sri. Sundar Menon is one of the Directors of Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan Finance Limited. Several crimes were registered against him by the Town West Police Station, Thrissur alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and various sections of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 [the BUDS Act] in connection with the transactions of the aforesaid companies. He was released on bail vide order dated 06.01.2025 of this Court in Bail Application No. 10785/2024. It is contended in Ext.P2 that, since Sri. Sundar Menon was involved in several criminal cases, he is not eligible or competent to exercise the functions and discharge the duties as the President of the Thiruvambadi Devaswom.
6. On 27.02.2025, the petitioners received Ext.P4 communication, informing them that they have been removed from the Managing Committee which is an elected body from the general body of the Thiruvambadi Devaswom. The alleged reason stated was that the petitioners misbehaved in the meeting held on 19.02.2025, which is a ground under Clause 48 of the bye-law for removal from the Managing Committee.
7. It is contended that the petitioners approached the Munsiff Court, Thrissur and instituted a
Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority
Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani
Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar
Shobha S v. Muthoot Finance Ltd.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.