Kerala High Court
C.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
W.P.(C)NO.6396 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
C.GOPINATHAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, PARAKKULANGARA THIRUTHITHODI
(H),VILAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 679309
BY ADV RESMI A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM
P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, CIVIL STATION,
TIRUR, PIN - 676101
5 DIVISION INSPECTOR
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR,PERINTHALMANNA DIVISION, ANGADIPPURAM, PIN -
679321
6 THE AREA COMMITTEE
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN -
678101
2
W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024
7 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KARIPPAMANNA SIVA TEMPLE, KARINGANAD, VILAYUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679309
8 HARIDAS. P @ BABY
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR , KRISHNALAYAM HOUSE, VILAYUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679309
9 RAMACHANDRAN P.V.
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN, PADINJARE VALAPPIL HOUSE, VILAYUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679309
10 ANIL KUMAR P.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MUNDAN, POOKKADATHU (H), VILAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679309
11 ADDL.R11. C.M.CHITHRABHANU NAMBOOTHIRI
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
CHUMARAKANDATHU MANA,THATHANAMPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT
- 679337
12 ADDL.R12. RAJESH NAMBOOTHIRI C.M.
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
PANAMPATTA MANAKKAL, VILAYOOR P.O., PALAKKAD - 679309 [ARE
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN
WP(C) 6396/2024]
BY ADV R.RANJANIE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ;
SR COUNSEL SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN ALONG WITH SMT R.RANJANIE
- STANDING COUNSEL - MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Shiva of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, Malappuram Division, whereby respondents 8 to 10 have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees in the Trustee Board of that temple for a period of two years, based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6th respondent Area Committee, Malappuram Division. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3 rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P11 complaint dated 18.01.2024 made by the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, respondents 8 to 10 are active politicians in the locality and the 9th respondent is involved in several criminal cases. Therefore, they are disqualified to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees of Karippamanna Sree Siva Temple. A Trustee Board consisting of non-hereditary trustees was 4 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 constituted for the first time in Karippamanna Sree Siva Temple, as per the proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, without considering the complaints made by the devotees.
3. On 20.02.2024, when this matter came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to get the details of the hereditary trustees of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple and whether the temple is governed by an approved scheme for its administration.
4. On 23.02.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board submitted that there are two hereditary trustees for Karippamanna Siva Temple. There is no approved scheme for the administration of the temple. For the last several years, the Board of Trustees of the temple consists of two hereditary trustees and three non-hereditary trustees. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to implead the hereditary trustees of the temple.
5. On 27.02.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though it is stated in the writ petition that the appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the 6th respondent Area Committee is by exercising its powers under Section 39(5) 5 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the non-hereditary trustees are appointed for the first time, invoking the provisions under Section 39(2) of that Act. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that the appointment of non-hereditary trustees invoking Section 39(2) of the Act was based on a request made by the 7th respondent Executive Officer, since the hereditary trustees are not interested in the management of the temple.
6. By the order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, the hereditary trustees of the temple were impleaded as additional respondents 11 and 12. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 6. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 7 to 10 and also to additional respondents 11 and 12, returnable by 29.02.2024.
7. On 25.03.2024, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of the said counter read thus;
"3. Though Hereditary Trusteeship of the temple is vested with Chumaram Kandathu Mana, none of the eligible family members are coming forward to claim the hereditary 6 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 trusteeship by approaching the Deputy Commissioner for getting approval. The Trustee family is not showing any interest in the administration of the temple since long. In pursuance of request from the Executive Officer of the Karippamanna Siva Temple, to constitute a Board of Trustees, by including 3 Non-Hereditary Trustees, a notification was issued, inviting application to the 3 non-hereditary vacancies in the Trustee Board, on 30.08.2022 and the last date prescribed for receipt of applications was on 14.10.2022. It is submitted that the three applications were received within the prescribed time and other three applications including that of the writ petitioner were received only on 03.11.2022. Hence those applications which were received after the cut of date were rejected.
4. The temple is a controlled institution under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The grievance highlighted in the writ petition is that the respondent Nos.8 to 10 are active politicians in the locality and 9th respondent is having several criminal cases charged against him, hence they are disqualified to be appointed as Non Hereditary Trustee of Sree Karippamanna Sree Siva Temple. It is contended in the writ petition that the Board of Trustees inclusive of Non Hereditary Trustees was constituted for the first time as per the proceedings dated 01.11.2023, by the 4th respondent without considering the complaints submitted by the devotees.
5. It is also contended that the said appointment is as per order of the 6th respondent in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 read with Section 39(5) of the HR & CE Act. It 7 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 is also contended in the writ petition that, before the Constitution of the Board, the committee of devotees were managing the affairs such as festivals in the said temple. Ext.P1 would show that the appointment of Non Hereditary Trustees were made on the strength of the decision of the Area Committee, Malappuram, dated 25.09.2023, in pursuance of the notification dated 30.08.2022, issued for inviting application to the post of 3 Non Hereditary Trustees in the temple. The contention that the notification inviting application for the post of Non Hereditary Trustees was not published anywhere including notice board of the temple, is incorrect. Further contention that the petitioner, applied for the same, even though the notification was not published, is baseless.
6. Ext.P10 is dated 09.08.2023 and there is no date for Exts.P11, P12 and P13. The Inspector had enquired into the complaints regarding allegation of political affinity of the applicants. Ext.P2 would evidently prove that the respondent No.8 is not an active politician but contested as an independent candidates in the local body election. In Column 18 of Ext.P6, it is shown that the mentioned person is Haridas Kunnathody, who is a different person and hence a false attribution, of the 8th respondent as the representative of Kera Karshaka Sangham. If at all he was a member of the said Vilayoor 'Karshika Vikasana Samithy', which is not a political body but a committee with certain limited agricultural developmental activities attached with 'Krishi Bhavan'. So the said fact cannot be reckoned as a 8 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 disqualification by categorising the said person as an active politicians.
7. In Column 7 of Ext.P8 suspected accused is Chandran, whereas the respondent No.9 is Ramachandran P.V. and the address mentioned in the FIR and that of the 9th respondent in the writ petition are also different. As such is the Ext.P7 also. If at all the 9th respondent had become accused in FIR it cannot be termed as a disqualification under Section 46 of the HR & CE Act. The Inspector had reported that such a case was registered against respondent No.9 and he had deposed before the Inspector that the alleged item was kept by him with the permission and under the authoritative records issued by the Department concerned.
8.It is submitted that there were three applications within the prescribed time and the report of the Inspector would show that three of them are qualified, so it was impossible for excluding them unless they are suffering from any disqualifications as contemplated under the statutory provision in the HR & CE Act or in the guidelines formulated. It is submitted that the Trustee Board had its meeting on 28.12.2023 and the respondent No.8 had been elected as Chairman and the Board assumed the office on 28.12.2023. So, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to uphold the above contentions and dismiss the writ petition."
8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 09.04.2024. Paragraphs 3 to 10 of that affidavit read thus;
"3. The allegation in paragraph 3 is regarding the hereditary trustees. As per the averment in this paragraph, the 9 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 Trusteeship of this temple is vested with Chumaramkandathu Mana. This is absolutely false. The Trusteeship of Karippamanna Siva Temple is vested in Chumaramkandathu Mana as well as Panampatta Mana and the hereditary trustees of the temple are respondents 11 and 12. The 11th respondent is C.M.Chithrabhanu Namboothiri, Chumaramkandathu Mana and he is laid up after a stroke. The 12th respondent Sri. Rajesh Namboothiri, Panampatta Mana is active in the temple management. He used to participate in every meetings conducted by the temple management and used to sign in Minutes Book also. The 4th respondent itself had given the details of the hereditary trustees to the petitioner for impleading them.
4. The averments made in paragraph 5 that the information regarding the appointment of trustees were published is absolutely false and hence denied. It is true that the application for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees invited on 30.08.2022 and the last date for submitting the application was 14.10.2022. The same was kept as a secret and not published everywhere including the notice board inside the temple or not informed anybody. When the petitioner and other two applicants came to know the same, they submitted applications and after receiving the applications, they were also invited for the interview. The fact is that the other three persons were selected even before the petitioner and other three persons were invited for the interview. If the applications were rejected on a reason that they were submitted after the prescribed date, the invitation 10 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 for attending interview seems a mockery towards the other applicants including the petitioner herein.
5. Exts.P11, P12 and P13 are facebook posts. It is true that the 8th respondent is contested the local body election as an independent candidate but as "LDF Swathanthran". He himself appears as Haridas Kunnathodi and known as Babiettan in the Karinganadu locality and he appears in Social media as Haridas Pottachira. His photos are evident to prove that the person known as above three names is the same person, the 8th respondent herein. The Kera Karshaka Sangham is a wing of CPI(M) and the 8th respondent is a member in this.
6. It is stated in paragraph 7 that the name of the 9 th respondent and the name in Ext.P8 FIR is different persons. The 9th respondent is known as Chandran in the locality. He is also included in Anakkomb case and the case is pending in Munsiff Magistrate Court, Pattambi
7. The averments made in paragraph, the 10th respondent is also a non-hereditary trustee and he denied to accept the notice issued vide special messenger.
8. It is most humbly submitted here that the Karippamanna Siva Temple is managed by a committee of devotees including the Trustees of the temple and the Malabar Devaswom Board had not involved in any other activities except the present appointment of non-hereditary trustees. The temple renovated by the committee of devotees and there is no mismanagement in the temple, till date.
9. The appointed non-hereditary trustees not participated in any of the activities of this temple.11 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024
10. If the information of the application is published, several devotees who are active in the temple activities have to submit applications for the posts of non-hereditary trustees. It is also suspected here that the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 is determined earlier."
9. On 09.04.2024, when this matter came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;
"In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, it is stated that the Trustee Board of the Karippamanna Sree Siva Temple, 'inclusive of non- hereditary trustees' was constituted for the first time as per proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of that respondent.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to the proceedings dated 01.11.2023."
10. Today, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 6. Despite service of notice, none appears for 12 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 respondents 7 to 10 and also for additional respondents 11 and
12.
12. Ext.P1 order dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner is one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6th respondent Area Committee, whereby respondents 8 to 10 have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple, for a period of two years. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 8 to 10, who are active politicians in the locality, and the 9th respondent, who is involved in several criminal cases, who are disqualified to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees in a temple which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees by Ext.P1 order, despite the complaints made by the devotees.
13. In Sreedharan Nambeesan P. v. Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board and Others [2018 (2) KLT 115] the issue raised before a Division Bench of this Court was whether the hereditary trustee of a temple would have any right to be given notice before a non-hereditary trustee is being appointed by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, under Section 39(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. 13 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held as follows;
"11. This is not to say that when the Commissioner invokes his power under Section 39(5) the Hereditary Trustee is completely divested of any say. The power vested with the Commissioner is to act fairly, judiciously and in a manner that behooves his office, being the seneschal of the various temples and institutions under his command. The power of the Commissioner being bridled by the section itself, not to act unless there is an imminent necessity to fill up the vacancies of Non-hereditary Trustee or Trustees and that too after recording such reasons in writing, show the implicit care to be invested while acting under its sanction. The vacancies are not to be filled under his whim or fancy but the Commissioner is clearly obligated to first conclude if it is necessary to do so, which can only mean to be a situation in which he thinks that the Hereditary Trustee will not be sufficient on his own to manage the affairs of the temple/institution. The competence and capability of the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees thus becomes absolutely relevant and germane when vacancies are sought to be filled up in the posts of Non-hereditary Trustees under Section 39(5) of the Act and, therefore, the issuance of a notice of such intention by the Commissioner to the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees, though not specifically mentioned in Section 39(5), will be apposite if not to be read into its provisions as a concomitant necessity to ensure fairness in procedure. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the Hereditary Trustee need not be consulted at all, while acting under Section 39(5), therefore, does not appear to be on terra firma forensically."
14. Seeking review of the judgment in Sreedharan Nambeesan P. [2018 (2) KLT 115], the Commissioner 14 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 Malabar Devaswom Board and others filed R.P.No.227 of 2018 [neutral Citation No: 2018:KER:17236], contending that the words in paragraph 11 of the said judgment would give an impression that before acting under Section 39(5) of the Act, the competent authority is obligated to obtain the concurrence of the hereditary trustee.
15. In the decision in Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and others v. Sreedharan Nambeesan P. [2018:KER:17236] the Division Bench clarified that in the judgment, what was intended was that the hereditary trustee be offered an opportunity to place his view regarding the necessity of filling up the vacancy in the office of the non-hereditary trustee. The judgment did not say that the concurrence of the hereditary trustee is necessary but only that he may be given the opportunity to state why he thinks that there is no necessity for the Commissioner to appoint a non-hereditary trustee. The Division Bench found this apposite since as per the provisions of Section 39(5) of the Act the Commissioner shall not fill up a vacancy of a non-hereditary trustee unless he considers it necessary to do so. It was in the backdrop of this particular provision that the Division Bench said that even though the issuance of a notice to the 15 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 hereditary trustee is not mandated or specifically provided under Section 39(5) of the Act, it will be desirable, to ensure fairness in procedure, that the hereditary trustee is also afforded an opportunity to place his views appropriately before final orders are passed under Section 39(5). The intention was not that the concurrence of the hereditary trustee to the proposal of the Commissioner be obtained but merely that he be given an opportunity to speak his opinion as to why he feels that there is no necessity to appoint a non-hereditary trustee in the temple. It is needless to say that since it was not the concurrence of the hereditary trustee that is required to be obtained, as per the judgment, the only obligation of the Commissioner is to afford the hereditary trustee an opportunity to say why he feels that no necessity exists for an order under Section 39(5) of the Act, so that any vital information, which is within the domain of the hereditary trustee can also be placed for his consideration. The Division Bench further clarified that the views of the hereditary trustee are not binding on the Commissioner, as per the provisions under Section 39(5) of the Act, but merely that such views can also be elicited to aid the Commissioner while he takes a decision as to whether it is necessary to fill up the vacancy. With the above 16 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 clarification, the Division Bench closed the review petition.
16. In Gopinatha Menon (Kenathachan) v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2012:KER:16515] a Division Bench of this Court held that recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, is not necessary to make an appointment of a non-hereditary trustee on any ground referable to the conduct of the hereditary trustee, or otherwise, when there is a scheme governing the trust, which provides, among other things, for appointment of four non- hereditary trustees.
17. In Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party noticed that the decision of the Division Bench in Parameshwaran Namboothiri P.M. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2011 (2) KHC 719] and Sreedharan Nambissan P. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2018 (2) KLT 115] are in the context of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the circumstances stated in the sub-section (2), which has no application when the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in a temple is governed by the provisions under the 17 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 scheme framed under Section 58 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act relates to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in temples, where there is no scheme framed in terms of Section 58 of the Act. Once such a scheme is framed, the Malabar Devaswom Board has to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance with that scheme.
18. In Gopinatha Menon [2012:KER:16515] the Division Bench noticed that the complaint of the petitioner, who is the Managing Trustee of the temple in question was that, the persons who are appointed as non-hereditary trustees are disqualified, as they are active politicians or those clouded by allegations referable to financial misconduct. The Division Bench observed that, even if the persons who have been selected and appointed as non-hereditary trustees have any such disqualifications, it may be open to the petitioner to move the Commissioner by pointing out such disqualifications. The Commissioner will then have to hear the petitioner and the persons against whom such allegations are made and conclude whether any such disqualification exists, warranting the removal of those persons. Therefore, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition in limine, leaving that issue open.
18W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024
19. In V. Sudharsanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2012:KER:24089], the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which one of the contention raised by the petitioners was that, the persons elected are disqualified from being appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple in question, on account of their alleged political allegiance and the fact that they are active political workers. The Division Bench noticed that the said question is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided, if any such objection is raised. Such decision-making process has to be undertaken by the appointing authority. Therefore, if any one among the petitioners has any objection or complaint in that regard, he may place it before the Malabar Devaswom Board, within a period of one month. If any such objection or complaint is received, the competent authority will issue notice to the non-hereditary trustees concerned and give him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on that issue, in accordance with law.
20. In Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (2) KLT 885], a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look forward to give political asylum to their workers. The 19 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 Division Bench noticed that ours being a highly politically sensitive State, hardly any person can be traced, who is completely apolitical or who may not have his own independent political views. There may be persons having permanent political ideologies or views whereas there may be equal number of persons who hold views according to the issues involved. Perhaps that may be the reason why Kerala has become a State of political swinging. The Division Bench made it clear that holding political views or sympathizing with a political denomination cannot be held a disqualification for nominating anyone to such a post. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench held that "even assuming that respondents 7 to 9 have some political leaning or rather they are sympathizers of a political party, that fact will not disentitle them to be considered for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. There is clear distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active participation in the activities of the party. The taboo under sub-clause (g) of clause 3 of the notification issued by the Commissioner will be attracted only if respondents 7 to 9 are active politicians or are office bearers of a political party, for which absolutely no evidence is forthcoming.
21. In Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388], this Court 20 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 held that the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of the notification issued by the Commissioner, make it explicitly clear that, for appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. Therefore, it is for the Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure that any appointment made as non-hereditary trustee of the temples under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board is strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in similar notifications. If found necessary, the format of the application for appointment as a non-hereditary trustee in the temple under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board has to be modified in an appropriate manner, by requiring the applicant to furnish particulars in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses in similar notifications. The Commissioner was directed to take necessary steps in this regard, if found 21 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 necessary, after placing before the Malabar Devaswom Board, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.
22. In judgment dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.29279 of 2023 this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388], for appointment as non-hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire appointment as non-hereditary trustees of TTK Devaswom. Therefore, the 1st respondent Commissioner has to ensure that any appointments made as non-hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, are strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in the notification dated 10.07.2023 (Ext.P1).
22W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024
23. In Anantha Narayanan and another v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2023 KLT OnLine 1195 : 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1022], a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, held that when clause 3(7) of Ext.R6(a) notification [clause 5(2) in Ext.P1 notification dated 02.02.2023] issued by the Commissioner for appointment as non-hereditary trustees in the temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, is considered in the light of the interpretation given by this Court in Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388], no person actively involved in politics is eligible to be appointed as a non-hereditary trustee in a temple.
24. In Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195] the Division Bench noticed that the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines 'politician' as "a person whose job is concerned with politics, especially as an elected member of the Parliament, etc." Such a technical meaning of the word 'politician' cannot be accepted to understand clause 3(7) in Ext.R6(a) notification which says that active politicians or persons holding official posts in any political party are ineligible. The terms are used disjunctively. So persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they 23 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 hold any post in a political party, are ineligible. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that respondents 6 to 8 therein have no case that they have any other profession. It is a matter of common knowledge that the functioning of a political party and selection/election of its office bearers is not similar to public employment. Whichever be the political party, one who is actively involved in the activities of that political party alone is ordinarily selected/elected as an office bearer. Having been selected as office bearers of the political party/DYFI before or soon after the appointment as non-hereditary trustees, respondents 6 to 8 cannot contend that they were not active politicians. In constitution of DYFI [Ext.R6(e)], it is stated that a member of the DYFI can work in any political party. That does not mean that the DYFI does not have any political colour. Whether or not it has any affiliation to any particular political party, what is evident from the constitution is that the area of activities of DYFI is politics and related activities. As such it cannot be said that the activities of DYFI are non-political.
25. In Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195] the Division Bench noticed that, going by the parameters prescribed in notification [Ext.R6(a)], persons who are convicted 24 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 for more than six months for offences involving moral turpitude are alone ineligible to be non-hereditary trustees. It is, however, specifically prescribed in Ext.R6(a) that persons who apply to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees shall be idol worshippers and persons having an interest in the advancement of the temple. They should also be persons used to be involved in the affairs of the temple. A person having reverence and adoration for a deity can alone be treated as a worshipper. A person facing criminal prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a person to be appointed as a trustee in a temple. A trustee is a person obligated to conduct temple affairs in accordance with custom or usage. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court explained the diligence and devotion a trustee of a temple should have. When those are the necessary qualifications required for a person to be appointed as a non-hereditary trustee, and the danger of appointing unqualified and untrustworthy persons as trustees, the Malabar Devaswom Board shall stipulate the eligibility criteria in consonance with that. Therefore, the Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to take a decision in that 25 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 regard before proceeding with any new appointment of non- hereditary trustees in the temples under it.
26. Against the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 as non- hereditary trustees in the temple in question, vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which was one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6th respondent Area Committee, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 complaint before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. It is for the petitioner to file a revision petition before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, with the following directions;
(1) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall file a revision petition before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, challenging the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question, vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 01.11.2023 26 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which was one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6th respondent Area Committee, along with an application for interim stay.
(2) The 3rd respondent Commissioner shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for interim stay, with notice to the petitioner, the 7th respondent Executive Officer, respondents 8 to 10 and also additional respondents 11 and 12, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of that application. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall finally dispose of that revision petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months; after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. (3) The order to be passed by the 3rd respondent Commissioner shall be a 'reasoned order'.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE MIN 27 W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6396/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT.P- 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT .P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE REQUESTING TO VOTE FOR THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT.P- 3 A TRUE COPY OF FACEBOOK POST OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2021 EXHIBIT.P- 4 A TRUE COPY OF FACEBOOK POST DATED 29.09.2023 POSTED BY MR.KARINGANAD NOUFAL KP SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY EXHIBIT.P- 5 A TRUE COPY OF FACEBOOK POST DATED 26.11.2023 POSTED BY ONE MR.SHEREEF VILAYUR EXHIBIT.P- 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DATED 29.07.2021 EXHIBIT .P-7 TRUE COPIES OF SCREEN SHOTS TAKEN FROM MANORAMA NEWS DATED 05.07.2021 EXHIBIT .P-8 A TRUE COPY OF FIR.NO.0117 OF 2023 LODGED IN KOPPAM POLICE STATION DATED 02.04.2023 EXHIBIT.P- 9 A TRUE COPY OF FACEBOOK POST OF ''KARINGANAD SAGHAKKAL"
DATED 17.01.2024 SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT IN DYFI EXHIBIT .P-10 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 17.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE COMPLAINTS GIVEN BY SRI.MANOJ KUMAR AND THE DEVOTEES OF KARIPPAMANNA EXHIBIT.P- 11 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18.01.2024 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT.P- 12 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT.P- 13 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT