Suresh.K vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9226 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                      &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

      FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.14471 OF 2020(H)


PETITIONER/S:

                SURESH.K
                AGED 49 YEARS
                S/O NARAYANAN (LATE), KARUTHAT HOUSE, B.P. ANGADY P.O.,
                THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
                SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN
                SRI.PIOUS MATHEW
                SRI.ROY JOSEPH
                SMT.AANNIES MATHEW
                SRI.E.HARIDAS

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE
                (DEVASWOM)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, GOVT.PRESS P.O.,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

      2         MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
                HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

      3         COMMISSIONER,
                MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM
                P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006

      4         THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUR P.O, PIN-676 101
     W.P.(C).14471/2020              :2:



       5        INPSECTOR,
                OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
                MANJERI,PIN-676 401

       6        THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                SREE VAIRAMCODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, VAIRAMCODE P.O.,
                MALAPPURAM-676 301

       7        RAJESH.T.J.,
                S/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR, KADENGAL HOUSE, KURUMBATHOOR
                P.O., THIRUNAVAYA-676 301

       8        SUBRAMANYAN.V.
                S/O. KUMARAN.V.,VALIYIL HOUSE, THEKKAN
                KATTOOR,VENGALOOR P.O., PIN-676 102

       9        PREMAN.A.K.,
                S/O. VELAYUDHAN.A.K., AYINIKOOTTIL HOUSE,
                VALIYAPARAPPUR, ANANTHAVOOR P.O., PIN-676 301

                R1 BY SR.GP SRI. RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
                R2 TO R6 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
                R7-9 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN (PALAKKAD)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-
2021, THE COURT ON 19-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).14471/2020                   :3:




                              JUDGMENT

Haripal, J.

Petitioner is a devotee of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple,

Thirunavaya in Malappuram district and claims to be interested in the

affairs of the Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi devaswom. According to the

petitioner, the temple is governed by a scheme framed in O.A.No.11/81

and the administration is vested with the Board of Trustees consisting of a

hereditary trustee and four non-hereditary trustees. The temple comes

under the supervision of the Malabar Devaswom Board. From 2009 till

2019 there was no Trust Board for the temple. In 2013, when steps were

taken for appointing trustees, W.P.(C) No.30075/2014 was filed by the

devotees, which was disposed of by the Ext.P1 judgment. Thereafter,

Ext.P2 notification was issued by the 3 rd respondent inviting applications

to fill up the post of non-hereditary trustees. Pursuant to the notification,

15 applications were received, which were examined by the 5 th respondent,

who conducted interview and gave the Ext.P3 report. Basing on Ext.P3, W.P.(C).14471/2020 :4:

the 4th respondent gave the Ext.P4 report to the 3 rd respondent following

which Ext.P5 resolution was taken by the Malabar Devaswom Board and

thereafter the Ext.P6 order was issued appointing respondents 7 to 9 and

one Radhakrishnan as non-hereditary trustees. The petitioner is aggrieved

by the Ext.P6. Challenging the same he moved this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. In Ext.P10 judgment, this Court observed

that it is an order of the Board revisable under Section 99 of the Madras

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, that since an

alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, relegating him to invoke

that remedy, the petition was disposed of. On the basis of that decision,

the petitioner moved the 1st respondent with Ext.P11 revision. But, by

Ext.P12 order, the Government rejected the contentions of the petitioner

and that prompted him to move this Court again, seeking the following

reliefs:-

"i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Exts.P5, P6 and P12 and quash the originals of Exts.P5, P6 and P12 by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii. To declare that the selection of respondents 7 to 9 who are active politicians are ineligible to be appointed as non-

hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi W.P.(C).14471/2020 :5:

Devaswom in the light of Clause 3(g) of Ext.P2 notification;

iii. To direct the 3rd respondent to interdict the respondents 7 to 9 from taking any policy decision in regard to the administration of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Devaswom."

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 7 to 9

were appointed violating the stipulations in Ext.P2 notification. As per

sub-clause (g) of clause 3 of the said notification, active politicians or

office bearers of political parties shall not be considered for appointment

as non-hereditary trustees. But, except the said Radhakrishnan in Ext.P6,

respondents 7 to 9 are active politicians. This vital aspect raised by him

before the Government was not considered. Therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to

be set aside.

3. Supporting the argument, the petitioner has produced Exts.P7

to P9 photographs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner had also produced a CD in support of the contentions.

According to the petitioner, active politicians and office bearers of

political parties should not have been considered for appointment of W.P.(C).14471/2020 :6:

non-hereditary trustees. He has a further contention that such nominations

were made without conducting due enquiry by the 5 th respondent and also

without consulting the hereditary trustees. These are adverse to the

interest of the Devaswom and the temple and therefore, he prayed for

quashing Ext.P6.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board.

5. We have no doubt that the temple or its precincts cannot be

made a place where political parties should look forward to give political

asylum to their workers. At the same time, 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. We said this to make it clear that

holding political views or sympathizing with a political denomination W.P.(C).14471/2020 :7:

cannot be held a disqualification for nominating anyone to such a post.

6. It is the common case that the 3rd respondent had invited

applications from persons who are not active politicians or office bearers

of political parties, among other qualifications, to be considered for the

post of non-hereditary trustees in Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple.

Fifteen applications were received which were got examined through the

5th respondent, who, after conducting interview and considering the

affidavits filed by them, gave the Ext.P3 report clearing all of them.

7. A perusal of Ext.P3 would indicate that the 5 th respondent had

met all the applicants and personal profiles were created; affidavits were

also obtained from them. Though he concluded that all the fifteen

applicants are entitled to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees, it seems

that at least one person, i.e. serial No.8 Suresh Kumar, is a lawyer by

profession, who is reportedly working as the Thalakkod Mandalam

President of the Indian National Congress. Even the said Suresh Kumar

has been cleared by the 5 th respondent for nomination. Fortunately, his

name does not appear among the four persons who were shortlisted.

W.P.(C).14471/2020 :8:

8. It is reported by the Inspector that all of them do not hold any

office of a political party. It was in this background that the Ext.P4 report

was sent and Ext.P5 resolution was adopted by the Devaswom Board,

which ultimately led to the passing of the Ext.P6 order by which the said

Radhakrishnan and respondents 7 to 9 are appointed as non-hereditary

trustees.

9. When the Government had considered the Ext.P11 revision

filed by the petitioner and passed the Ext.P12 order, the relevant aspects

were considered; that order was passed after hearing both sides. The

petitioner had also highlighted the photographs to buttress his contention

that they are active politicians. The very same argument is raised by the

learned counsel before this Court. But, as a matter of fact, it is trite that

when such an allegation is raised by the petitioner, he is expected to bring

in foolproof evidence to support the contention. It seems that photographs

like Exts.P7 to P9 were produced before the Government, which were not

acted upon. Basing on such an evidence, which is not specific but vague,

this Court also cannot accept the arguments of the petitioner. The identity W.P.(C).14471/2020 :9:

of the said persons is not ascertainable by this Court. Secondly, 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 Ext.P2 will be attracted only if they are active

politicians or are office bearers of a political party, for which absolutely no

evidence is forthcoming.

10. It was also urged that while making appointments the

hereditary trustee was not consulted by the Devaswom Board. In fact,

such a contention is not available to the petitioner. He has no case that he

is a hereditary trustee of the Devaswom or a person authorised by the

hereditary trustee. Such a right for consultation as provided under Section

39(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is

available only to a hereditary trustee. The petitioner, though claimed to be

a devotee, is a stranger as far as the provision under Section 39(2) is W.P.(C).14471/2020 :10:

concerned. We also notice that the petitioner had no such case in Ext.P11

Revision.

11. It is also contended that the 8th respondent has educational

qualification only upto 7th standard whereas there are many candidates

who are having qualifications like degree and above, and therefore, his

nomination is bad. This argument also cannot hold good so long as there

is no such prescribed minimum general educational qualification fixed by

the statute. There is no such specification in Ext.P2 also.

To sum up, the petitioner could not make out any valid reason, or

ground, to interfere with the appointment of respondents 7 to 9 as

non-hereditary trustees of the temple and the writ petition is bereft of

merits and liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

                                                              K.HARIPAL
                                                                JUDGE
okb/15.2
                                                      //True copy// P.S. to Judge
     W.P.(C).14471/2020              :11:




                              APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:



EXHIBIT P1               TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2019 IN
                         WPC NO.30075/2014

EXHIBIT P2               TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.5.2019
                         ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3               TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.8.2019
                         RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT

EXHIBIT P4               TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
                         RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5               TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1 DATED 21.8.2019
                         ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6               TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.8.2019
                         ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7               PHOTOS SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF SRI.RAJESH

T.J.IN THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE MEETING OF CPI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

EXHIBIT P8 THE 8TH RESPONDENT SRI.SUBRAMANIAN V IS ALSO AN ACTIVE POLITICIAN AND THE PHOTO SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF SRI, SUBHRAMANIAN IN PUBLIC PROCESSION AS PARTY WORKER

EXHIBIT P9 PHOTO SHOWING THE MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN CONDUCTED BY SRI.PREMAN A.K.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.10.2019 IN WPC NO.26170/2019 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 15.10.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT W.P.(C).14471/2020 :12:

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT) 2360/2020/RD DATED 2.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.2.2020

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.917/2009 RD DATED 4.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT