Kerala High Court
G.Vijayanathakurup vs N.R.Rajendran on 15 June, 2021
Devan Ramachandran, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.F.A.No.562 of 2010
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2021
ORDER
The learned Advocate Commissioner Sri.B.Premnath has
filed a report dated 12.06.2021 seeking urgent orders.
2. Suffice to say that the contents of the report are very
serious and indicates the manner in which the affairs of the
Temple are being handled by the Committee and its Secretary-in-
charge.
3. Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed
by Sri.Hariharaputhran, appeared on behalf of the Secretary-in-
charge and sought time to file objections to the contents of the
aforementioned report. However, during the course of hearing -
discerning the mind of this Court that it is the learned
Administrator, Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai, who has been
vested with full responsibility over the affairs of the Temple - the
learned Senior Counsel submitted that his client will abide by all
the directions of the learned Administrator, including issuance of
cheques for the requirements of the hospital; but voiced an
apprehension that his client may not be held responsible for any
mismatch or error in the payment in future.
4. Sri.B.Premnath, learned Advocate Commissioner,
prayed that the Secretary may be directed to issue a cheque for
Rs.18,97,964/-, along with the signature of the Treasurer, so that
the purchase of medicines and consumables for the hospital may
not be effected. He added that since the payment has been ordered
by the learned Administrator subject to audit, the apprehension
above voiced by the learned Senior Counsel has no legs to stand
on. He then explained that the above payment is now imperative
since the Purchase Committee for the requirements of the hospital,
earlier constituted by the learned Administrator, has not yet been
convened.
5. As I have already indicated above, the report of the
learned Advocate Commissioner and its enclosures prima facie
show that the Secretary-in-charge seems to believe that he can
even sit in judgment over the lawful directions of the learned
Administrator. Such an impression of the Secretary, if any, will be at
his own risk and consequence, since the judgment is manifestly
clear that the learned Administrator is in over all charge of the
affairs of the Temple. Obviously, therefore, the present action of the
Secretary-in-charge, to challenge the directions of the learned
Administrator, cannot be countenanced. Needless to say, if he has
any cause for concern, he will be at liberty to bring such either
before the Committee or before this Court. However, what is now
exhibited is a situation where the Secretary-in-charge virtually
challenges the learned Administrator and issues orders on his own,
without in any manner being authorised by the Committee or any
other competent authority.
6. I do not intend to say anything further at this time since,
as said above, the learned Senior Counsel has sought time to offer
his client's explanation to the report.
In such circumstances, I adjourn this matter to be called on
23.06.2021; however, recording the undertaking of
Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, that his client will effect
payment of the aforementioned amount and that he will abide by all
the directions of the learned Administrator, subject to his right of
placing objections, if any, either before the Committee or before
this Court.
The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this
order to the learned Administrator, Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai,
by e-mail today itself.
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
