Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
ANILKUMAR A – Appellant
Versus
SIVAPRASAD – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 | OP(C) NO. 984 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.I.S.LAILA
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SMT.SARAYOO S.
Elections conducted without a stay order are not subject to challenge post-event; petitions challenging multiple orders must be filed separately to ensure procedural adherence.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965 - Challenge to election of temple trust - Petitioner sought to restrain respondents from contesting election for temple trust, which had already been held, rendering the petition infructuous. Court noted that no stay order was issued, and therefore, the election proceeded. Petitioner allowed to challenge mismanagement or misappropriation of funds post-election, as new committee formed. (Paras 1-3, 15-18)
(B) Procedural Complaints - A petition challenging multiple orders should be separately filed; combining them is considered defective. Petition for appointment of a court representative dismissed as unnecessary since a new committee was elected and is competent to manage affairs. (Paras 6-8)
(C) Trust Administration - Court noted the necessity for a Temple Administrator to ensure compliance with the scheme, proper management of funds, and timely elections. (Paras 16, 18)
Findings of Court:
Both original petitions were dismissed as infructuous and defective in procedural terms, with emphasis on the authority of newly formed committee.
Issues: Whether the election could have been challenged post-facto and the legality of the appointment of a representative for trust administration.
Ratio Decidendi: Elections held in absence of a stay order render any challenge moot; combined petitions for separate issues lack procedural validity, and trust administration does not warrant immediate intervention post-election.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges temple trust election conduct. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. election held; petition is infructuous. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. allegations of fund mismanagement by trust. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. court's assessment: new committee competent. (Para 15) |
| 5. proper trust management and modification needed. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. both petitions dismissed. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
O.P(C) No.984/2023 has been filed by the petitioner, who was the applicant before the court below, seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A No.22/2022 by the First Additional District Court, Kollam, restraining the respondents from contesting in the panel for the election of the temple trust, scheduled to be held on 30.04.2023.
2.The learned counsel for the respondent contended that no stay order had been granted by this Court, and that the election was accordingly held on 30.04.2023. It is therefore submitted that O.P(C)No.984/2023 does not survive for consideration and has become infructuous
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that the election has already been conducted and therefore, the petition has become infructuous.
4.Once the petition had been filed challenging the conduct of the election to be held on 30.04.2023, when there was no stay order granted by this court, the election was continued and held on the said day. Therefore, the order was passed in respect of I.A No.22/2022 seeking a declaration that the candidates were incompetent to contest the election cannot be granted at this stage. If the election has already been conducted, the relief available to the petitioner is to challenge the election conducted or the election of the returned candidate. Therefore, O.P(C)No.984/2023 has become infructuous as the election is already over.
5.Accordingly, the O.P(C) No.984/2023 deserves to be dismissed as infructuous.
6.O.P(C) No.1701/2023 has been filed by the same petitioner challenging the common orders passed by the Additional District Court, Kollam in I.A Nos.4/2021 and 26/2022 filed by the petitioner. I.A. No. 4/2021 was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of a representative of the Court to issue directions for conducting the routine affairs of the temple (it is nothing but seeking appointment of a receiver). I.A No.26/2022 filed by the same petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the renovation chart, along with the minutes, registers, coupons, receipts, vouchers, and other materials printed for fund collection.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent objected to the petition on the ground that two separate applications filed by the petitioner were disposed of by a common order, therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed two separate petitions challenging the said two orders. Hence, a single petition challenging both orders is not maintainable.
8.Although the same petitioner challenged the order on I.A No.22/2022 by filing a separate petition i.e., O.P(C) No.984/2023 but filed only a single petition seeking two reliefs claimed or challenging two separate orders by a single petition, which is a defective petition.
9.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge may be confined to the order passed in I.A. No. 26/2022.
10.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent have been placed on record.
11.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent is the trustee of the Sree Mulankadakom Devi Temple deity performing poojas through their committee. A Scheme was framed by the District Court in O.S No.97/1099( Malayalam era) and as per Ext.P1, the Scheme prepared by the District Court, if any mismanagement of the affairs or misappropriation of the funds, any aggrieved member may move an application before the District Judge for necessary directions and modifications to the Scheme.
12.It is further contended that the respondents, being members of the trust, have misappropriated funds. They have printe
