Kerala High Court
B.Govind Rajan Nair vs The Cochin Devaswom Board on 2 July, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
DBP NO. 23 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD - REPORT NO. 3 OF 2024
IN COMPLAINT NO. 209 OF 2023- POONITHURA KOTTARAM SREE KRISHNA
TEMPLE- ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FAILURE OF PROPER UPKEEP OF ACCOUNTS
BY THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE- SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-
REG-
PETITIONERS:
SRI. BINESH K., VIKRAS 49, GREESHMA, POONITHURA.P.O.,
EERNAKULAM-682038
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
2 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
3 SRI. B. GOVINDARAJAN NAIR,"RADHIKA" VIKRAS 47,
KOPPARAMBU LANE, POONITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682038.
4 SRI. K. SREENIVASAN
PKRRA 53, KOPPARAMBU LANE, POONITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-
682039.
2
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
5 SRI. T.V. LEELADHARAN,
PKRRA 41, " GEETHAM", KUREEKAT LANE, POONITHURA
KOTTARAM ROAD, POONITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682038.
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GP
SRI.K.P SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN, AMICUS CURIAE
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WPC 18250 OF 2024, THE COURT ON 2.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18250 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 B.GOVIND RAJAN NAIR
AGED 79 YEARS
S/O BHASKARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT RADHIKA HOUSE,
POONITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682038
2 DIVYA .L
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O T.V.LEELADHARAN, THAZHUMPAL, POONITHUR KOTTARAM
ROAD, POONITHURA., PIN - 682038
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH,
THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680001
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
COCHIN DEVASOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA GROUP,
THRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA GROUP,
THRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
4 THE KSHETRA UPADESAKA SAMITHY, POONITHURA KOTTARAM
4
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
TEMPLE, POONITHURA P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI.M.RADHAKRISHNAN, TRRA,102,LAKSHMI, THAMARASSERY
ROAD, POONITHURA., PIN - 682038
5 ADDL.R5: THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 ADDL R6: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
AUDIT, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 [ADDL.R5 &
ADDL.R6 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 25.05.2024 IN
WP(C)18250/2024].
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025,
ALONG WITH DBP NO.23 OF 2024, THE COURT ON 2.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
ORDER/JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
D.B.P. No.23 of 2024 is registered suo motu based on Report No.3 of 2024 of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, pointing out the allegations raised in Annexure 01 complaint received from a devotee, alleging failure in the proper upkeep of accounts by the Temple Advisory Committee of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple.
2. In the report, the learned Ombudsman stated that the Devaswom Board had already taken steps to conduct an audit after getting the records from the Committee, and hence, Annexure 01 complaint was closed. But the learned Ombudsman further stated in the report that there was a previous complaint bearing No.63 of 2015 in respect of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple, and it was noted at the time of enquiry of that complaint that the accounts from 2012 were to be audited, and even now it is not done, and the delay is not explained by the Cochin Devaswom Board. Therefore, the learned Ombudsman seeks necessary direction to the Cochin Devaswom Board to 6 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 complete the audit of the accounts as assured, within a time frame and to submit an audit report.
3. W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the devotees of Poonithura Kottaram Temple seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 proceedings dated 22.12.2023 of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, permitting the 4th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of Poonithura Kottaram Temple, to construct a Nadapanthal on the open space available on the eastern side of the Temple. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the request submitted by the 4th respondent seeking permission for construction of the Nadapanthal taking into consideration of the fact that already there is a Bhagavatha Mandiram and a stage to meet the requirements and to declare that the present attempt to construct a Nadapanthal on the eastern side of the Temple is an unnecessary construction and amounts to wastage of public fund and it is not in the interest of the devotees.
4. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 7 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Devaswom Board whereby sanction is accorded to the 4 th respondent to construct a nadapanthal on the open space available on the eastern side of the temple. The main objective behind the construction of the Nadapanthal is for the conduct of Bhagavatha Sapthaham, Narayaneeyam, other religious speeches, cultural and art programmes and procession with elephant and instrumentalists during the festival. When the devaprasnam was conducted during 2012, it was specifically mentioned and instructed that there shall not be any permanent or temporary structure on the eastern side of the temple since it will obstruct the vision of the idol towards the eastern side. This aspect was mentioned in Ext.P1 notice as early as in the year 2012. Hence, the construction on the eastern side of the temple is not in the interest of the deity or that of the devotees. No devaprasnam was conducted to ascertain the wish of the deity. Apart from that, there is already a big stage with a green room available in the temple premises for conducting cultural and art programmes. The Bhagavatha mandiram is there from the year 2000 onwards, wherein the Bhagavatha Sapthaham 8 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 and Narayaneeyam were conducted. Hence, the construction of the nadapanthal is of absolutely no use, and it amounts to a waste of funds collected from the devotees. It will cause inconvenience to the devotees during temple festival seasons since there is insufficient space available after the construction of the nadapanthal. The necessity for the construction of the Nadapanthal was not taken into account by the Devaswom Board while rendering Ext.P2 sanction. Now, through Ext.P5 notice, the 4th respondent had started to raise funds, and the petitioners apprehend that construction will also be started immediately. Hence, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition.
5. The 4th respondent in the DBP filed a counter affidavit dated 15.06.2024 denying his responsibility with regard to cash and financial dealings of the Temple Advisory Committee while he was officiating as the President of the Temple Advisory Committee of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"2. I was elected as the President of the temple advisory committee of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple in the year 2012. On being elected as President, I had orally 9 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 stated at that time itself to the committee that I cannot take any responsibility with regard to cash and financial dealings of the temple advisory committee and that I will not sign in any of the cheques issued or received by the committee. All the financial transactions were handled by the then secretary and treasurer. As such I am not responsible for the irregularities shown in the complaint.
3. In the meantime, there was a proposal by the then Secretary that a new stage has to be built after demolishing the existing stage in front of the temple. This was objected by me then and there itself. Meanwhile I had been to Mumbai to spend some time with my elder son. On returning from Mumbai I came to know the new stage was already built. Immediately, I decided to dissociate from the committee and gave my resignation letter to the Secretary on 19.11.2014. Moreover as per letter dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure 1 Pages 10-13) to the President of Cochin Devaswom Board I along with other resigned committee members had pointed out the irregularities conducted by the Secretary and coterie of three members. As such I would like to state that I was not involved with regard to the financial dealings of the committee and hence I may be discharged from the allegations in the complaint".
6. On behalf of respondents 3 and 5, the 3 rd respondent, who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024, filed a counter affidavit dated 29.10.2024 in the DBP denying the 10 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 allegations raised against the Temple Advisory Committee while he was officiating as the Secretary. Paragraph 2 of that counter affidavit reads thus:
"2. It is respectfully submitted that I was the Secretary of the Kshetra Upadesaka Samithy of the Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Poonithura for the period from 2012 to 2015. Then Samithy had prepared the receipts and payments for the period from 10-12-2012 to 31-03-2015, audited by Chartered Accountant namely N.Ramesh and produced the audited accounts along with all relevant records before the Devaswom Board. The copy of the audited account has been given to around 350 devotee families who contributed to the renovation. The entire documents were produced before the Devaswom office at Thrissur. On 07-07-2015 the Special Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board issued a letter vide A5- 4736/2015 directing the Samithy to produce the records and accounts before the Devaswom Board. For the said letter reply was given by the Samithy dated 12-07- 2015 pointing out that the wife of the Treasurer of the Samithy is in Lakshore Hospital due to Cancer treatment and requested time and it was informed that the records will be submitted after 12-07-2015. True copy of the reply dated 12-07-2015 submitted by the then Samithy to the Special Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(a). Accordingly the Samithy had handed over all the records and the audited 11 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 account statement before the Devaswom Board. To the knowledge of this respondent, the Devaswom Board has audited the account and the one and only objection raised is to the effect that the Secretary has only put an initial in certain documents instead of the full signature. To the knowledge of the petitioner a communication in this regard was issued to the Samithy also and it is kept in the locker of the Godrej Almirah kept in the green room. The keys of the said Godrej Almirah has also handed over to the Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara while vacating the office. Subsequently what happened in the matter is not within the knowledge of this respondent. Hence according to me the accounts were audited and all the documents are handed over to the office of the Cochin Devaswom Board pursuant to the communication issued by the Special Commissioner dated 07-07-2015. Hence there cannot be any allegation against the then Samithy regarding the auditing of the account. The allegations of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Ombudsman are baseless and without any bonafide. This was made clear by these respondents before the Hon'ble Ombudsman through the statement as evidenced from Annexure-03. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected".
7. The 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 filed a counter affidavit dated 04.06.2024 opposing the prayers in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(f) 12 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 documents. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"3. lt is to be noted that the Poonithura Kottaram Temple is an ancient temple with all structures of a big temple and every year the number of devotees are increasing. Mainly there are two rituals being performed in the temple in a year. One is bagavatha sapthaham during April month and secondly 10 days long festival during the Sreekrishna Jayanthi (Ashtami Rohini). In those two functions, about 2,000 devotees would attend and for which every year a temporary shed about 4,000 Sq. Ft. would be made. For which the Samithi had to spend Rs.2,20,000/- would be spend for the temporary shed. It is true that a bagavatha manthiram which is having 1358 Sq. Ft. is existing in the temple premises, but in that, for conducting a programme, a platform stage of about 287 Sq. Ft, is to be made inside for the above referred festivals and the devotees cannot afford in the balance place. For the said purpose the bagavatha manthiram is not sufficient. In addition to that the petitioners herein had constructed a small stage with 400 Sq. Ft. in the property of the temple, which is also insufficient for conducting the above two functions.
4. In addition to that a 9 days long navarathri rituals, sanadana dharma classes are also being conducted in the temple. Normally the bagavatha manthiram is being used for stocking groceries and other materials for the purpose of prasada oottu during Sapthaham and Sreekrishana Jayanthi festival. The nadapantal and stage which are being 13 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 constructed by the Samithi is having 4,300 Sq. Ft. in 11 long pillars having 18 Ft height and hence no part of the temple would be faded or blocked by the new construction.
5. It is to be noted that the respondents 1 to 3, after conducting enquiry, as per its proceedings No.H12016/2024 dated 03.04.2024 has granted sanction for constructing the said nadapantal in the temple. The true copy of the order issued by the respondents 1 to 3 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R(4) b). It is further to be noted that the permission of Tantri from Puliyannoor Mana has also obtained for the purpose of the construction of nadapantal. The true copy of the said permission of the Tantri dated 03.03.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R(4)(c). It is further to be noted that this respondent has decided to construct the nadapanthal as per the directions from Vezhaparambu mana. The true copy of the measurement details issued by the famous Thachushastram specialist P.P. Parameswaran Namboothiri of Vezhapara mana dated 1/12/2023 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R(4) (d). The true copy of the layout of the present construction is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R(4)(e). The photographs showing the devotees normally being participated in above referred functions is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R(4)(f). This be the true facts, the allegations in the writ petition are false and incorrect. The allegation in para No.2 that while the 1 st petitioner was working as the secretary of the temple advisory committee, all renovations were completed is a 14 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 false story. The then temple advisory committee, especially the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2 nd petitioner, had acted at thereon whims and fancies and have removed the year old Kottaram of the temple and reconstructed the same with concrete and the same invited criticism from the devotees of the temple. Then temple advisory committee had committed huge misappropriation in the fund and due to the same, they were compulsory dispersed by the Devaswom Board. The further allegation that as per the devaprasnam conducted in the temple, there had an observation that no temporary or permanent construction shall be made on the eastern side of the temple is false. It has already stated that the present structure is proposed to be constructed in 11 pillars in an open manner at height of about 18 feet and which would not affect the view of the temple or the deity in any manner. In addition to that there is no such observation in the devapresnam to the extent that no construction should be made in the eastern side of the temple.
6. It is true that the then committee (2012-2015) had made certain construction in the temple which invited serious criticism from the public that old structures which had to be protected as such by maintaining it, had been removed and replaced with concrete structures. For doing those works lakhs of Rupees were misappropriated".
8. To this counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a reply 15 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 affidavit dated 06.07.2024, producing therewith Exts.P7 to P17 documents.
9. The 1st respondent in the writ petition filed a counter affidavit dated 17.08.2024 opposing the prayers in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(i). Paragraphs 3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"3. It is true that the first petitioner was the secretary of the temple advisory committee for the period commencing from 2012 to 2015. A complaint was filed by one Binesh.K against the first petitioner and two others before the learned Ombudsman alleging that the previous committee has not maintained proper accounts. The learned Ombudsman submitted Report No. 3 of 2024 and DBP No. 23 of 2024 was registered by this Honourable Court. The report submitted by the learned Ombudsman would show that the Devaswom Board has already taken steps for conducting audit after getting the records of the committee. A report dated 14/03/2024 was filed by the internal audit wing of the board. In this regard true copy of report dated 14/03/2024 submitted by the internal audit wing of Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(a).
4. It is submitted that according to the petitioners there is already a hall in existence on the north-western portion of 16 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 the temple for conducting Bhagavatha Sapthaham, Narayaneeyam etc. It is further alleged that the present temple advisory committee is constructing temporary shed (panthal) for the purpose of conducting bhagavatha sapthaham by spending lakhs of rupees unnecessarily. It is also alleged that the said construction is in front of the temple so as to obstruct the vision of the deity towards the eastern side. According to the petitioners, the present proposal of construction is absolutely an unnecessary expenditure and not in the better interest of the temple. It is submitted that those allegations are incorrect and the same is stoutly denied by this respondent.
5. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent submitted a report numbered as Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 17.11.2023 to the Devaswom Commissioner, CDB as to the necessity of constructing a nadapandal. Along with the report the 2 nd respondent forwarded the report dated 28.10.2023 of the Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara Devaswom. In this regard true copy of report numbered as Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 17.11.2023 submitted by the 2 nd respondent to the Devaswom Commissioner, CDB is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(b). It is based on Ext.R1(b), Ext.P2 order dated 22.12.2023 was issued. So, the Devaswom Officer submitted a request dated 28.2.2024 to the Thanthri along with the plan and measurement prepared by Vezhaparamb Parameswaran Namboodiripad. In this regard true copy of the plan and measurements prepared by Vezhaparamb Paramewaran Namboodiripad is produced herewith and 17 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 marked as Ext. R1(c). The Thanthri of the temple issued consent letter dated 3.3.2024 to the Devaswom Officer. In this regard true copy of the consent letter dated 3.3.2024 issued by the Thanthri, Thripunithura Puliyannur Anujan Namboothiripad is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(d).
6. While so, the 4th respondent submitted letter No. PKSKSK/ NP12/ 2023 dated 8.2.2024 to the Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara Devaswom to accord sanction for removing existing small stage platform which is coming inside the proposed nadapandal. In this regard true copy of Letter No. PKSKSK/ NP12/2023 dated 8.2.2024 issued by the 4th respondent to the Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara Devaswom is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(e). The 2nd respondent by letter Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 12.2.2024 forwarded Exhibit R1(e) request to the Devaswom Commissioner. In this regard true copy of letter Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 12.2.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext. R1(f). By Order No. H1. 2016/2024 dated 03.04.2024, permission was granted by the 1 st respondent. In this regard true copy of Order No. H1.2016/2024 dated 03.04.2024 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(g).
7. It is submitted that a report was also called for from the maramath wing. In this regard true copy of Report No. H1.
2016/2023 dated 27.5.2024 submitted by Assistant
18
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
Executive Engineer, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(h).
8. It is submitted that on coming to know Ext. P5 notice dated 28.3.2024 it was informed to the 4th respondent that the proposal to display the name of any donor contributing Rs.1 lakh will be displayed prominently cannot be done as it is against the directions issued by this Honourable Court. It is submitted that the apprehensions expressed in para 8 of the reply affidavit has no basis. The allegation in para 15 of the reply affidavit that routine morning abhishekam is not being carried regularly and properly is incorrect. On receipt of the reply affidavit, the 2 nd respondent obtained a report from the Melsanthi of the temple. In this regard true copy of the report dated 13.8.2024 of the Melsanthi of temple is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(i). Ext. R1(i) would show that the allegations in paragraph 15 of the reply affidavit is incorrect".
10. To this counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a reply affidavit dated 02.10.2024, producing therewith Ext.P18 document. The 1st respondent again filed an additional counter affidavit dated 07.12.2024, producing therewith Ext.R1(j) document.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant in the DBP, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition, 19 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant in the DBP submitted that the accounts of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple for the period from 2012 were not submitted for audit by the then Temple Advisory Committee, even though there was a direction by the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.63 of 2015. By pointing out Annexure-02 accounts statement provided by the Temple Advisory Committee for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, the learned counsel argued that when the closing balance as on 31.03.2013 was shown as Rs.22,764/, the opening balance as on 01.06.2013 was shown as R.1,964/-. The accounts in between this period are not submitted by the Temple Advisory Committee of the relevant period.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3 rd and 5th respondents in the DBP would submit that the Committee had handed over all the accounts to the Devaswom Board. It was kept 20 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 in the locker of the Godrej almirah kept in the green room, and the keys of the almirah were also handed over to the Devaswom Officer while vacating the office. What happened to them thereafter is not known to the respondents. The present Temple Advisory Committee is carrying out the construction of a nadapanthal without properly obtaining the sanction and without ascertaining the Devahitham. The construction will cause huge inconvenience to the devotees.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that every year, huge amounts are spent for providing pandals for various festivals and functions in the temples. The proposed Nadapanthal is to avoid these huge expenses for temporary pandals each year. The consent letter from the Thantri and plan from the approved Vastu Consultant have also been obtained. The Assistant Executive Engineer gave Ext.R1(h) report detailing all these facts to the Board. As far as the accounts for the period from 2012 to 2015 are concerned, the then Temple Advisory Committee has to hand over those accounts for audit.
21
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
15. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. [see: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others - 2018 (1) KHC 536].
16. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was enacted for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest 22 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin.
17. Section 62A of the Act, inserted by Act 14 of 1990, deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 62A, all immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties. The provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. As per Section 62B, all unassigned lands belonging to the Devaswom under the sole management of the Board shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to such lands.
23
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
18. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub- section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be met from the said fund.
19. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) 24 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees.
20. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1 st day of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department.
21. Section 76A of the Act deals with formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the Cochin Devaswom 25 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 76A, a committee for each temple in the name "Temple Advisory Committee'' (name of the Temple)" may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2), the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3), the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice, prevailing, if any.
22. Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 09.11.2011 and 13.11.2011 in DBP Nos.78 of 2011, the draft bye-law for the constitution of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board was prepared by the Board. The draft bye-law was finalised after considering the objections in the meetings convened by the learned Ombudsman on 30.06.2012 and 03.07.2012. In Report No.123 of 2012 submitted by the learned Ombudsman, certain suggestions were made with regard to modification of some of the clauses. Various parties have filed affidavits in DBP No.78 of 2011 incorporating 26 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 their suggestions in the matter. Thereafter, the Division Bench finalised the bye-law with the modifications suggested in the order dated 22.07.2013 in DBP No.78 of 2011 and the Board was directed to file an action taken report producing therewith the bye- law as modified in terms of the directions contained in that order.
23. The bye-law approved by the order of this Court dated 22.07.2013 in DBP Nos.8 of 2010 and 78 of 2011 was published in Kerala Gazette, in terms of Section 123 of the Act. Review petitions were filed seeking review of the order of this Court dated 22.07.2013. By the order dated 11.08.2015, those review petitions were disposed of approving the amendments insofar as Clause 25 of the bye-law is concerned. Thereafter, circular dated 16.06.2019 and circular dated 24.01.2019 were issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board with regard to the functioning of the Temple Advisory Committees. In terms of the directions issued by this Court in the order in DBP No.31 of 2020, the Board made certain suggestions regarding the amendment of the bye-law for the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees.
24. As already noticed, as per sub-section (1) of Section 27 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 68 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Cochin Devaswom Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes.
25. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachari [(1979) 2 SCC 65], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus;
"4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit 28 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with 29 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it."
(underline supplied) 30 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
26. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
27. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that 31 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further noticed that the relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction.
28. From the perusal of the materials on record, especially the report of the learned Ombudsman, we notice that though steps have been taken for conducting audit of the accounts of the Temple Advisory Committee of the Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple, after 2016, no such steps have been taken for auditing the accounts from the year 2012 till 2015. According to the Board, the accounts for the period 2012 to 2015 were not 32 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 submitted to the Board by the then Advisory Committee. The 3 rd respondent, the previous Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee, filed the counter affidavit stating that all the accounts were in the almirah in the Devaswom office at the time of their vacating the office. However, the Devaswom Board took a stand that those accounts were not received from the previous Temple Advisory Committee. While going through these rival contentions raised by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple cannot escape from their liability to produce the accounts for the period of their tenure for audit by taking a stand that the accounts were kept in the almirah while vacating the office.
29. As far as the allegations raised in W.P.(C) No.18250 of 2024, we notice from the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent that the steps for the construction of a nadapanthal were initiated after obtaining necessary permission from the Board. The opinion of the Thantri was also obtained by the Committee before approaching the Board. Ext.R1(h) report filed 33 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board shows that the construction of the Nadapanthal is intended to avoid huge expenses for the construction of temporary pandals every year.
30. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.
31. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of 34 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.
32. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.
35
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
33. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injuncted by law.
34. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the law down in the aforementioned judgments, we find absolutely no merits in W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 to grant the reliefs in the form of writs, by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 stands dismissed. However, DBP No.23 of 2024 is disposed of directing the 3rd and 5th respondents therein to visit the Devaswom office, where they claim as kept the accounts of the Committee for the relevant period, along with an Officer to be deputed by the 6 th respondent in the writ petition, namely, the Deputy Director of the Kerala 36 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 State Audit Department and the officer deputed by the Cochin Devaswom Board and to verify whether the accounts of the Temple Advisory committee of the period 2012 to 2015 is kept in that office as contended in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, shall hear all the parties concerned and take a decision as to the accounts of the period not submitted by the Temple Advisory committee and place the same before the Board for taking appropriate decision.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
37
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
APPENDIX OF DBP 23/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 01- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.10.2023 ANNEXURE 02- REPLY DATED 19.2.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ANNEXURE 03- REPLY DATED 25.1.2024 BY THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 ANNEXURE 04- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THEN OMBUDSMAN RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the reply dated 12-07-2015 submitted by the then Samithy to the Special Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board 38 DBP No.23 of 2024 and WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18250/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATED 20- 11-2012 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD VIDE ORDER NO. H1/2016/23 DATED 22-12-2023 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF EXT.P2 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30-01-2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COP OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPOSED NADAPANTHAL Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE SAMITHY DATED 28-03-2024 THEREBY CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REQUESTED FROM THE DEVOTEES Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED NIL RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4( B) True copy of the order issued by the respondents 1 to 3 Exhibit R4 (C) The true copy of the permission of the Tantri dated 03.03.2024 Exhibit R4 (D) True copy of the measurement details issued by the famous Thachushastram specialilst P.P. Parameswaran Namboothiri of Vezhapara mana dated 1/12/2023.
Exhibit R4 ( E) - true copy of the layout of the present construction.
Exhibit R4( F ) The photographs showing the devotees normally
being participated in above referred
functions.
Exhibit R4 (A) True copy of the order passed by the Board
directing compulsory dispersal of the then Samithy PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P7 True copy of the notice issued by the Temple Advisory Committee for the period from 01-
39
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
04-2012 to 31-03-2015 whereby the audited account was published to the knowledge of the devotees Exhibit P8 True copy of the notice issued by the then Committee dated 20-11-2012 Exhibit P9 True copy of the notice dated 28-03-2024 published by the 4th respondent Exhibit P10 True copy of the photographs showing the place proposed for construction of the toilet Exhibit P11 True copy of the photographs showing the Vazhipadu Counter then existing Exhibit P12 True copy of the photographs showing the newly constructed Vazhipadu counter obstructing the view of the main temple Exhibit P13 True copy of the report from Birbal Sahani Institute of Paleobotany dated 02-06-2015 Exhibit P14 True copy of the sketch of the Gopuram prepared by V.P.Chitrabhanu Namboodiripadu, Vezhaparambu Mana Exhibit P15 True copy of the Order No.7811/2016 dated 29-
07-2016-KUS-204 issued by the Special
Devaswom Commissioner
Exhibit P16 True copy of the Order No.A5/10752/2018 dated
30-10-2018-KUS-310/18 issued by the
Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board
Exhibit P17 True copy of the list of Upadesaka Samithy
from 2022 onwards
True copy of the notice published by the
Exhibit P18 petitioners to the knowledge of the devotees
dated nil
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R 1 ( f ) True copy of letter Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 12.2.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( a ) True copy of report dated 14/03/2024 submitted by the internal audit wing of Cochin Devaswom Board.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( b ) True copy of report numbered as Ref. No. M4.
18/13 dated 17.11.2023 submitted by the 2nd respondent to the Devaswom Commissioner, CDB.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( c ) True copy of the plan and measurements
prepared by Vezhaparamb Paramewaran
40
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
Namboodiripad.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( d ) True copy of consent letter dated 3.3.2024
issued by the Thanthri, Thripunithura
Puliyannur Anujan Namboothiripad.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( e ) True copy of Letter No. PKSKSK/ NP12/ 2023
dated 8.2.2024 issued by the 4th respondent to the Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara Devaswom EXHIBIT R 1 ( g ) True copy of Order No. H1. 2016/2024 dated 03.04.2024 issued by the 1st respondent EXHIBIT R 1 ( h ) True copy of Report No. H1. 2016/2023 dated 27.5.2024 submitted by Assistant Engineer, Cochin Devaswom Board.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( i ) True copy of the report dated 13.8.2024 of the Melsanthi of temple EXHIBIT R 1 ( j ) True copy of report bearing No. H1. 2016/2023 dated 23.11.2024 of the Assistant Engineer, Cochin Devaswom Board along with its enclosures