SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74173

KERALA HIGH COURT
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
Pramosh Vettiyattil and Premkumar K.S. – Appellant
Versus
Malabar Devaswom Board – Respondent
W.P.(C)Nos.11120 of 2023 | W.P.(C)No.21724 of 2023 | W.P.(C)No.12891 of 2023 | W.P.(C)No.25242 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv.Sri.G. Krishnakumar, Adv.Sri.Sajeevkumar K.S.
For the Respondents: Learned Senior Government Pleader, Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board

The statutory provisions governing temple management override traditional claims, emphasizing adherence to the established legal framework.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Provisions regarding management of non-listed temples - Claim of hereditary trusteeship against statutory appointments by the Board - Order of the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board upheld - Petitioners have no legal right to manage temple as per existing statutes and circulars. (Paras 2, 14, 19)

(B) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Statutory authorities appointed to manage religious institutions must abide by the provisions of natural justice - Existing executive appointments take precedence in absence of valid hereditary rights. (Paras 14-18)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitions primarily involve disputes regarding the management of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Temple, where the petitioners seek to restrain interference from state authorities and uphold their claim of management based on tradition and the constitution of a local committee, despite statutory ownership by the Malabar Devaswom Board.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the temple management does not fall within petitioners' claims, as management is governed by statutory provisions requiring oversight from the Malabar Devaswom Board’s appointed officers.

Issues: The main issues include the legal standing of the petitioners to claim management rights against statutory appointments and the adherence to natural justice by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory authority takes precedence over traditional claims in temple management per the applicable laws, and petitions challenging this authority were dismissed, granting judicial recognition to the existing governance structure.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claims of management must align with statutory provisions. (Para 2 , 4 , 10 , 12)
2. court acknowledges ongoing disputes affecting temple administration. (Para 5 , 6 , 11)
3. statutory authority has precedence over traditional management claims. (Para 7 , 14 , 19)

1. W.P.(C)Nos.11120 of 2023, 21724 of 2023, 12891 of 2023 and of 2023: - The common issue involved in these writ petitions relates to the management of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Temple in Chavakkad Taluk, having Serial No.1190 in Appendix 1B schedule (non - listed) temples in notification No.HR3/5691/93 dated 15.02.1994 issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department.

2. W.P.(C)No.11120 of 2023: - This writ petition is one filed by Pramosh Vettiyattil and Premkumar K.S., who are stated to be the Patron and President respectively of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Kshetra Bharana Samithi, seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the 6th respondent Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guruvayur not to interfere with the administration / management and affairs of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Temple, Konkkanappetty, Chavakkad Taluk. The petitioners have also sought for an order restraining the respondents from taking over the temple and also from taking over the management and administration of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Temple, Konkkanappetty, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur without complying with the principles of natural justice.
2.1. On 30.03.2023, when that writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions.
2.2. On 03.04.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board made available for the perusal of this Court an order dated 13.12.2022 of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby one Ajin R. Chandran, who is a paid Executive Officer of the Malabar Devaswom Board, has been given additional charge as Executive Officer of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Temple. The learned Standing Counsel has also made available for the perusal of this Court sale deed bearing No.198/20 dated 06.02.2020 of the Sub Registrar Office, Andathode, in respect of an extent of 3.08 Ares of land and sale deed bearing No.2377/2013 dated 02.09.2013 of the Sub Registrar Office, Andathode, in respect of another extent of 1.922 Ares, executed in the individual name of the office bearers of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Kshetra Bharana Samithi.
2.3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.04.2023. The 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.04.2023, producing therewith Annexure R4(a) order dated 13.12.2022 of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby, an Executive Officer has been given full charge of Kapliyangad Sree Bhagavathi Temple.
2.4. On 07.07.2023, when this matter was taken up for consideration, it was submitted that Adv.Sri.G. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has already relinquished vakalath. Adv.Sri.Sajeevkumar K.S., the learned counsel, entered appearance for the petitioners and sought adjournment. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board submitted that though an Executive Officer has already been appointed vide Ext.R4(a) order dated 13.12.2022, he has not taken charge due to the resistance from the side of the petitioners. The police is not taking any action on account of the pendency of this writ petition. By the order dated 07.07.2023, this Court made it clear that the pendency of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the statutory authorities acting in terms of the orders passed by the competent authority. In case there is any law and order issue, the 6th respondent Assistant Commissioner of Police, through the concerned Station House Officer, shall do the needful.
2.5. One M. Divakaran Raja filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 seeking an order to get himself impleaded as additional 8th re








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top