Kerala High Court
The Zamorin Raja Of Calicut vs State Of Kerala on 17 May, 2022
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 23304 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
THE ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT
TALI DEVASWOM BUILDING, CHALAPPURAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 002.
BY ADVS.
T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRINATH GIRISH
P.JERIL BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
(DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
(DEVASWOM)DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.*
*THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS
CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 29-10-2021 IN WP(C).
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 006.
3** SAMOOTHIRI RAJA KUDUMBA KENDRA SAMITHY
REGN.NO.KKD/CA/762/2014
PALACE HALL, THALI, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT,
PIN-673002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY SRI.P.K.
SATHEESH KUMAR RAJA, AGED 69 YEARS, SON OF
KRISHNAN NAMBUDIRI, RESIDING AT KRISHNAJALI,
VENGERI MADHOM ROAD, CHOOLUR.P.O., NITC,
CALICUT-673601.
2
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
4** P.K.KRISHNA VARMA,
MEMBER, SAMOOTHIRI RAJA KUDUMBA KENDRA SAMILTHY,
REGN. NO. KKD/CA/762/2014, RESIDING AT REAL VILLA
APARTMENT, MAHAKAVI.G. ROAD, KOCHI-682011.
**ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 6.12.2021 IN IA 4/2021.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI S RAJMOHAN- SR G.P.
R2 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD
R3 & R4 BY K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
R3 & R4 BY S.M.PRASANTH
R3 & R4 BY G.RENJITH
R3 & R4 BY R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
R3 & R4 BY T.H.ARAVIND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 11.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27286/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 17.05.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 27286 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.C.U. RAJA,
AGED 95 YEARS,
ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE,
SREE VALAYANAD DEVASWOM, VALAYANAD, KOMMERI P. O.,
KOZHIKODE - 02, RESIDING AT C1 AYODYA APPARTMENTS,
THIRUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DIST., PIN - 673029.
BY ADVS.
T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
A.C.VENUGOPAL
VIDHYA. A.C
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P. O. ERANJIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673006.
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANJIPALAM P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673006.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.
4 SREE VALAYANADU DEVI KSHETHRAM ULSAVAGOSHA
COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY KOMMERI P. O., KOZHIKODE
- 673006.
4
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
5 SHAJI K. T.
S/O. CHANDRAN, KALATHUMTHODI, P.O.G.A. COLLEGE,
PALAZHI PALA, KOZHIKODE - 673014.
R1 & R2 BY SRI R .LAKSHMI NARAYAN - STANDING
COUNSEL, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
R3 BY SRI S RAJMOHAN- SR G.P.
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 11.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23304/2021,
27288/2021, THE COURT ON 17.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 27288 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNA MENON, VYYATTU (HOUSE),
KONDOORKARA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN-679303.
2 GOVINDAN NAIR,
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PANIKKAR,
PANIKULATH HOUSE, KONDOORKARA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD,
PIN-679303.
BY ADVS.
T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
K.C.KIRAN
M.R.MINI
M.DEVESH
ASHWIN SATHYANATH
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673006.
2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD, KENATH PARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678013.
6
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
3 MANAGER
SREE KADAPARAMBATH KAVU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE,
P.O.KONDOORKARA, PATTAMBI, PIN-679306.
4 K.V.NARAYANAN,
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PADINHARA MADHAM DEVASWOM,
PATTAMBI, PIN-679303.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD
P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
M.PROMODH KUMAR
MAYA CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 11.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).27286/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 17.05.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
7
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Ajithkumar, J.
W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021
The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of 32 Temples, which
are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity 'HR&CE Act'). The
office of the petitioner functions at the Central Devaswom office
near Valayanadu Temple, which is one among the said 32 Temples.
2. Going by the averments in the Writ Petition, on
05.10.2021, at around 11.30 a.m. the 2 nd respondent along with a
Deputy Commissioner and an Audit Inspector, inspected the said
Central Devaswom Office. The 2nd respondent did so without giving
any notice to the petitioner or his Personal Secretary, who
supervises the functioning of the office. During the inspection,
which went on till 4.30 p.m, the 2 nd respondent and other officials
behaved rudely and the whole episode was in the nature of a raid.
The employees in the office were not permitted to contact the
Personal Secretary of the petitioner or the Administrative Officer,
who happened to be away due to illness. Advocate Sri.Rajesh
Chandran, the lawyer of the petitioner, reached the office during
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
that time, but he was not allowed to intervene saying that he did
not have authorisation. Since the inspection was without any legal
sanctity and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the
petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to issue a writ of
certiorari or such other order or direction declaring the inspection
on 05.10.2021 was without authority and in violation of principles
of natural justice and the fundamental rights of the petitioner and
also to direct the 1st respondent-Government by a writ of
mandamus to initiate appropriate action against the 2 nd respondent
for conducting such an illegal inspection.
3. On 01.11.2021, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause
notice, Ext.P5, to the petitioner, presumably under Section 45 of
the HR&CE Act asking him to submit his reply within seven days.
Pointing out a number of discrepancies, infractions, and
irregularities in the administration of the Temples under the
petitioner, Ex.P5 notice was issued. Thereupon, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking to amend the Writ Petition by adding
additional statement of facts, grounds and reliefs. The petitioner
produced Ext.P5 notice therewith. In the amended Writ Petition, it
was further contended that since the Apex Court declared Section
21, among a few other provisions in the HR&CE Act,
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
unconstitutional, the very inspection conducted by the 2 nd
respondent was without any sanctity of law. Therefore, all the
actions initiated pursuant to such inspection are liable to be
declared null and void. The 2 nd respondent is an adjudicating
authority in the inquiry being conducted with respect to the
allegation regarding gold plating of the flag mast in Valayanad
Bhagavathy Temple in which he has passed Ext.P1 order on
24.08.2021. It was in such circumstances that the inspection
permeated with bias and malafides. Ext.P5 was issued by the 2 nd
respondent after having taken time from this Court on 29.10.2021.
It is issued with an oblique motive and, to circumvent the Court
proceedings. The inspection as well as Ext.P5 is illegal. Accordingly,
the petitioner claimed amended reliefs as follows:
"(ai) Issue a Writ of Declaration or such other appropriate
writ, order or direction, declaring that the inspection dated
05.10.2021 of the Zamorin's Central Devaswom Office at
Tali, Calicut by the 2nd respondent and his officials and the
procedure followed therein was without authority in violation
of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the
Fundamental Right of the petitioner.
(aii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading
to Ext.P5 dated 01.11.2011 and to quash the same as illegal
and without jurisdiction
(aiii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the 2nd
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
respondent from seeking to exercise powers under Section
21 of the Madras HR&CE Act, 1951 which has been declared
void and unconstitutional.
b) Direct the 1st respondent by a Writ of Mandamus or such
other appropriate writ, order or direction, to take appropriate
action against the 2nd respondent for the illegalities
committed by him in respect of the inspection dated
05.10.2021 of the Zamorin's Central Devaswom Office at
Valayanadu, Calicut; and
(c) Grant such other or further relief as this Honourable
Court deems fit to grant in the particular facts and
circumstances of the case."
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom
Board filed a statement for and on behalf of the 2 nd respondent. All
the allegations levelled against the 2 nd respondent are denied. The
inspection conducted on 05.10.2021 by the 2 nd respondent is
justified by contending that he has acted only within his powers as
invested on him by Sections 21 and 28 of the HR&CE Act. Further, it
is contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
5. I.A.No.4 of 2021 was filed by Samoothiri Raja Kudumba
Kendra Samithy seeking to implead its Secretary and a member as
additional respondents 3 and 4, which was allowed. They filed a
counter-affidavit. They alleged that the petitioner is not capable of
taking any decision by himself due to old age, physical weakness,
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
and loss of memory. His children, particularly a daughter, and her
husband misusing the said situation, have been doing every act
which is detrimental to the devotees of the Temples under the
trusteeship of the petitioner as well as other junior members of the
family. It is further alleged that there have been several
irregularities in the administration of the Temples, including misuse
of funds. Besides, they would contend that the petitioner has got an
effective alternative remedy under Section 99 of the HR&CE Act,
and therefore, the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable. Further, it is contended
that no Writ Petition for correction of procedural irregularities, as
sought by the petitioner is tenable.
6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder controverting the
contentions in the counter statements and also produced therewith
Exts.P6 to P11. More allegations were raised against the 2 nd
respondent and reasons in support of the maintainability of the
petitions are stated in the rejoinder.
W.P.(C) No.27286 of 2021
7. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021 is the
petitioner herein. Regarding the gold plating of the flag mast
(Dwajasthampam) in the Valayanadu Bhagavathy Temple, there
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
arose allegations of irregularities and malfeasance and an enquiry
in that regard under Section 45 of the HR&CE Act has been going
on. Writ Petitions have been filed before this Court in regard to the
said enquiry at its various stages. Ext.P17 is the memo of charges
dated 12.10.2020 in that matter. When Ext.P15 order was passed
on 13.05.2019 in the enquiry, W.P.(C) No.15901 of 2019 was filed
before this Court challenging the same. That, along with another
connected Writ Petition and R.P.No.407 of 2019 in W.P.(C)
No.40648 of 2018, was disposed of by this Court on 19.12.2019 as
per Ext.P16, which was challenged by the petitioner before the
Apex Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.3073 of 2021. That S.L.P. was
disposed of as per order dated 05.03.2021 observing that the
petitioner would have a full opportunity to respond to the
proceedings, and thereafter if he is aggrieved to pursue the
remedies which are available in law. As regards grievance of non-
furnishing of copies of documents and denial of opportunity to
cross-examine the witness on the prosecution side, the petitioner
filed I.A.Nos.26, 27 and 28 of 2021 in enquiry No.J2/2994/2019. As
per Ext.P21, the 1st respondent Commissioner allowed I.A.No.26 of
2021; however dismissed I.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2021. A reasonable
opportunity for the petitioner of being heard is thereby denied.
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
There occurred denial of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner
seeks to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P21 order and a
mandamus directing the 1st respondent to allow I.A.Nos.27 and 28 of
2021 in J2/2994/2019.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar
Devaswom Board raised objection regarding the maintainability of
the Writ Petition specifically contending that the remedy available
to the petitioner is under Section 99 of the HR&CE Act.
W.P.(C) No.27288 of 2021
9. The petitioners are the trustees of Sree Kadaparambath
Kavu Bhagavathy Temple, Kondoorkara in Pattambi Taluk in
Palakkad District. They filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of
certiorari quashing Ext.P6 order by which an Executive Officer was
appointed for the said Temple by giving additional charge to the 4 th
respondent, who presently has been working as the Executive
Officer in Padinjare Madam Devaswom. Sree Kadaparambath Kavu
Bhagavathy Temple is administered under Ext.P1 scheme. Ext.P2
complaint happened to be preferred before the President, Malabar
Devaswom Board, pursuant to some difference of opinion among
the worshippers of the Temple. That complaint was withdrawn
following the settlement of the disputes. However, an inquiry in the
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
matter was conducted in disregard of the settlement, copies of the
memorandum of which are Exts.P3 and P4. When a notice was
issued to the Manager of the Temple from the office of the 1 st
respondent, he did not take serious note of the same since the
matter has already been settled. The 1st respondent ignoring all
such developments proceeded to appoint the Executive Officer as
per Ext.P6. The said order is vitiated for the non-observance of
principles of natural justice. The remedy available under Section 99
of the HR&CE Act is not effective.
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom
Board filed a statement for and on behalf of the 1 st respondent
contending that the allegations in the Writ Petition are incorrect and
further, that it is not maintainable since the remedy under Section
99 of the HR&CE Act is not exhausted.
11. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit practically
supporting the case of the petitioners. The 3 rd respondent produced
Exts.R3(a) to R3(e) along with the counter affidavit.
12. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Krishnanunni, who
appeared on instructions for the petitioners, Senior Government
Pleader for the respondent-State, the learned Standing Counsel for
Malabar Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Counsel
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
Sri.K.Ramakumar appeared on instructions for additional
respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021.
13. The respondents would contend that these Writ Petitions
are not maintainable for more than one reason. Since an alternative
remedy is available under Section 99 of the HR&CE Act and the
same is not exhausted, the petitioners have no right to invoke the
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021 it has been
further contended that the inspection conducted by the 2 nd
respondent and its sequelae are acts authorized under the
provisions of the HR&CE Act, and at this stage, the petitioner is not
entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The pleadings on record would show that at 11.30 a.m.,
on 05.10.2021, the 2nd respondent along with the Deputy
Commissioner and an Audit Inspector of the Malabar Devaswom
Board, reached the office of the petitioner in the premises of the
Central Devaswom Office, Valayanadu Temple, Kozhikode.
Obviously, the inspection was done by invoking the powers of the
2nd respondent under Sections 20, 21 and 28 of the HR&CE Act. The
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
that since Section 21 of the HR&CE Act was held unconstitutional by
the Apex Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt [AIR 1954 SC 282], the inspection on
05.10.2021 had no sanction of law and was illegal. Every action
taken in consequence of the inspection, including Ext.P5 show
cause notice dated 20.10.2021, is illegal. Since the inspection dated
05.10.2021 itself has been in question in this Writ Petition, issuance
of Ext.P5 amounted to a frontal attack on the authority of this
Court. Therefore, the petitioner did not choose to submit any reply.
15. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom
Board, on the other hand, contended that the 2 nd respondent has
every authority to inspect the office of the petitioner, which has
nothing to do with the rites and rituals in the Temples, and
therefore, there was no illegality or even irregularity in conducting
the inspection. The learned Senior counsel appearing for additional
respondents 3 and 4 would submit that in the matter of
administration of the Temple affairs, the trustee cannot claim any
fundamental right, and therefore, the inspection did not imply
anything in conflict with the right of the petitioner under Article 25
or 26 of the Constitution of India, if at all he has any.
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
pointed out various provisions in the HR&CE Act in order to fortify
his contention that the office of Temple functioning at the Central
Devaswom Office, Valayanad has immunity from being inspected by
the 2nd respondent. To buttress the contention the learned Senior
Counsel derived support from the Shirur Mutt case (supra), where
Section 21 of the HR&CE Act was held unconstitutional, and also
Devaraja Shenoy and others, Trustees of Sri. Venkataramana
Temple v. The State of Madras and others [1960 (38) MysLJ
245] in which a Division Bench of Mysore High Court held a
subsequent amendment brought about by the Madras Legislature in
1954 to be ultra vires the Constitution. The learned Senior Counsel
further would submit that the Apex Court referred the said Mysore
decision with approval in Commissioner of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. U.Krishna Rao and others
[(1969) 3 SCC 451]. Therefore no authority under the HR&CE Act
can resort to Section 21 to conduct an inspection and the inspection
by the 2nd respondent on 05.10.2021 was without the sanction of
law. It is further contended that Section 21(3) of the HR&CE Act
obligates the Commissioner to give advance notice, but the
inspection was conducted by the 2 nd respondent without giving any
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
notice to the petitioner. That resulted in total negation of the rights
of the petitioner guaranteed not only under the said provision but
also under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
17. Constitutionality or not of Section 21 in the HR&CE Act
was considered by the Apex Court in Shirur Mutt case (supra) at
paragraph No.27, which is extracted below:
"27. We agree, however, with the High Court in the view taken
by it about Section 21. This section empowers the
Commissioner and his subordinate officers and also persons
authorised by them to enter the premises of any religious
institution or place of worship for the purpose of exercising any
power conferred or any duty imposed by or under the Act. It is
well known that there could be no such thing as an
unregulated and unrestricted right of entry in a public temple
or other religious institution, for persons who are not
connected with the spiritual functions thereof. It is a traditional
custom universally observed not to allow access to any
outsider to the particularly sacred parts of a temple as for
example, the place where the deity is located. There are also
fixed hours of worship and rest for the idol when no
disturbance by any member of the public is allowed. Section
21, it is to be noted, does not confine the right of entry to the
outer portion of the premises; it does not even exclude the
inner sanctuary "the Holy of Holies" as it is said, the sanctity of
which is zealously preserved. It does not say that the entry
may be made after due notice to the head of the institution
and at such hours which would not interfere with the due
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
observance of the rites and ceremonies in the institution. We
think that as the section stands, it interferes with the
fundamental rights of the Mathadhipati and the denomination
of which he is head guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution. Our attention has been drawn in this connection
to Section 21 of the Act which, it is said, provides a sufficient
safeguard against any abuse of power under Section 21. We
cannot agree with this contention. Clause (a) of Section 21
excepts from the saving clause all express provisions of the
Act within which the provision of Section 21 would have to be
included. Clause (b) again does not say anything about custom
or usage obtaining in an institution and it does not indicate by
whom and in what manner the question of interference with
the religious and spiritual functions of the Math would be
decided in case of any dispute arising regarding it. In our
opinion, Section 21 has been rightly held to be invalid."
18. The Apex Court held Section 21 to be invalid for the
reason that, it does not confine the right of entry to the outer
portion of the premises; but it does not even exclude the inner
sanctuary "the Holy of Holies". It is observed that the sanctity of
the inner sanctuary is zealously preserved, but the safeguards
provided under Section 91 against any abuse of power under
Section 21 do not put in place a mechanism for resolution of
dispute, if any, arises regarding such entry as the other reason for
the invalidation Section 21. The Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
Shirur Mutt case (supra) extracted the operative part of the
judgment of the Madras High Court, which reads:
"To sum up, we hold that the following Sections are 'ultra
vires' the State Legislature in so far as they relate to this Mutt
: and what we say will also equally apply to other Mutts of a
similar nature. The Sections of the new Act are: Sections 18,
20, 21, 25(4), Section 26 (to the extent Section 25(4) is
made applicable), Section 28 (though it sounds innocuous, it
is liable to abuse as we have already pointed out earlier in the
judgment), Section 29, Clause (2) of Section 30, Section 31,
Section 39(2), Section 42, Section 53 (because Courts have
ample powers to meet these contingencies), Section 54,
Clause (2) of Section 55, Section 56 Clause (3) of Section 58,
Sections 63 to 69 in Chapter 6. Clauses (2), (3) and (4) of
Section 70, Section 76, Section 89 and Section 99 (to the
extent it gives the Government virtually complete control
over the Mathadhipati and Maths)" (emphasis supplied)
19. Although, did not agree with the Madras High Court in
invalidating all those provisions, the Apex Court declared Sections
21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57, and 63 to 69 as invalid. It is pertinent to
note that the declaration was that those provisions are ultra-vires
the State Legislature insofar as they relate to the petitioner-Mutt
and also in relation to the other mutts of similar nature. When the
Apex Court upheld that, of course, limiting to Sections 21, 30(2),
31, 55, 57 and 63 to 69, the question is, whether those provisions
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
got deleted from the statute book altogether, or invalidation has
only a limited effect.
20. The relevant definitions are the following:
(i) 'Religious institution' means a Math, Temple or specific
endowment [Section 6(15) of the HR&CE Act];
(ii) 'Math' is a Hindu religious institution with properties
attached thereto and presided over by a person whose duty it
is to engage himself in imparting religious instruction or
rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples or who
exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over such a
body; and includes places of religious worship or instruction
which are appurtenant to the institution [Section 6(10)];
(iii) 'Temple', is a place by whatever designation known, used
as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for
the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu Community or
any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship"
[Section 6(17)];
(iv) 'Specific endowment' means any property or money
endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in
a math or temple, or for the performance of any other religious
charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in
Explanation (1) to clause (14) [Section 6(16)], and
(v) "Religious endowment" or "endowment" means all
property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of
maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of
any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
or of any other religious charity; and includes the institution
concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include
gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka,
service-holder or other employee of a religious institution;
[Section 6(14)].
21. The definitions delineate Maths, Temples and specific
endowments as independent institutions. The declaration in Shirur
Mutt case (supra) of Section 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57 and 63 to 69 as
ultra vires is insofar as they relate to Maths only. The consequence
is that the said provisions lose their applicability to Maths as
defined in Section 6(10) of the HR&CE Act. Whether the said
provisions lost validity insofar as the Temples and specific
endowments are concerned is then a moot question.
22. The petitioners in Devaraj Shenoy (supra) were
trustees of Venikataramana Temple of Mulki in South Canara. The
question was as to the validity of the provisions in the HR&CE Act
as amended by the Amendment Act, 1954. The Mysore High Court
relying on the principle laid down in Shirur Mutt case (supra) came
to the conclusion that the provisions in the Amended Act
corresponding to Sections 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57, and 63 to 69 also
could not stand the test of constitutionality. The learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners would therefore contend that
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
invalidation of Section 21 and other provisions does have
application in respect of the Temples as well. It is especially so, it is
contended, since the decision in Deveraja Shenoy got the
approval of the Apex Court in U.Krishna Rao (supra). In it, the
Apex Court specifically observed that "this Court in the
Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments, Madras v. Sri.Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt held that Sections 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57 and 63 to
69 of Act 19 of 195 were ultra vires, since they infringed the
guarantee of the fundamental rights in Articles 19(1)(f), 25 and 26
of the Constitution of India. The question has to be approached in
the light of that observation.
23. The essential contention considered by the Apex Court in
the Shirur Mutt case (supra) was that having regard to the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution in matters of
religion and religious institutions belonging to particular religious
denominations, whether the law regulating the framing of a scheme
interfering with the management of the Math and its affairs by the
Mathadhipati conflicted with the provisions of Articles 19(1)(f) and
26 of the Constitution of India and was hence void under Article 13.
The Apex Court in that context observed:
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
"As we have already indicated, freedom of religion in our
Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only; it
extends to religious practices as well subject to the
restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down. Under
Article 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination or
organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of
deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential
according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no
outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their
decision in such matters. Of course, the scale of expenses to
be incurred in connection with these religious observances
would be a matter of administration of property belonging to
the religious denomination and can be controlled by secular
authorities in accordance with any law laid down by a
competent legislature; for it could not be the injunction of
any religion to destroy the institution and its endowments by
incurring wasteful expenditure on rites and ceremonies."
(emphasis supplied)
The following observations in the Shirur Mutt case also appear
relevant.
"The administration of its property by a religious denomination
has thus been placed on a different footing from the right to
manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The latter is a
fundamental right which no legislature can take away, whereas
the former can be regulated by laws which the legislature can
validly impose. It is clear, therefore, that questions merely
relating to the administration of properties belonging to a
religious group or institution are not matters of religion to which
clause (b) of the article applies." (emphasis supplied)
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
24. The principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the
following subsequent decisions require mention. In Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi and others v. State of Bombay and others
[AIR 1954 SC 388], the Apex Court has held that the power to
take over the administration in the event of maladministration
financial/mismanagement certainly cannot be termed as a violation
of Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India. It is, undoubtedly, the
right of religious denominations to administer such property, but
such exercise can only be in accordance with the law. This means
that the State can regulate the administration of trust properties by
means of laws validly enacted; but here again, it should be
remembered that under Article 26(d), it is the religious
denomination itself that has been given the right to administer its
property in accordance with any law which the state may validly
impose.
25. In Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple, Varanasi and others v. State of U. P. and others
[(1997) 4 SCC 606], the Apex Court drew the distinction between
religious and non-religious activities in the context of Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution of India as follows:
"It is not every aspect of the religion that requires protection
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
of Articles 25 and 26 nor has the Constitution provided that
every religious activity would not be interfered with. Every
mundane and human activity is not intended to be protected
under the Constitution in the garb of religion. Articles 25
and 26 must be viewed with pragmatism. By the very nature
of things it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
define the expression "religion" or "matters of religion" or
"religious beliefs or practice". Right to religion guaranteed
by Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute or unfettered right to
propagate religion which is subject to legislation by the
State limiting or regulating every non religious activity. The
right to observe and practise rituals and right to manage in
matters of religion are protected under these Articles. But
right to manage the Temple or endowment is not integral to
religion or religious practice or religion as such which is
amenable to statutory control. These secular activities are
subject to State regulation but the religion and religious
practices which are integral part of religion are protected. It
is well settled law that administration, management, and
governance of the religious institution or endowment are
secular activities and the State could regulate them by
appropriate legislation." (emphasis supplied)
26. In Shri Jagannath Temple Puri Management
Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia [(1997) 8 SCC 422], the
Apex Court after a survey of previous decisions held,
"49. A review of all these judgments goes to show that the
consistent view of this Court has been that although the
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
State cannot interfere with freedom of a person to profess,
practise and propagate his religion, the State, however, can
control the secular matters connected with religion. All the
activities, in or connected with a temple are not religious
activities. The management of a temple or maintenance of
discipline and order inside the temple can be controlled by
the State. If any law is passed for taking over the
management of a temple it cannot be struck down as
violative of Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution. The
management of the temple is a secular act."
27. The above discussion follows that the real purpose and
intendment of Articles 25 and 26 is to guarantee the religious
denominations in the Country the freedom to profess, practice and
propagate their religion, to establish and maintain institutions for
religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs in
matters of religion, to own and acquire properties and to administer
such properties in accordance with law. The Apex Court invalidated
Sections 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57, and 63 to 69 HR&CE Act for the
reason and to the extent of their infringing on the guarantee of
fundamental rights. Administration of its property by a religious
denomination has been held to be not a fundamental right. Can
then it be said that, invalidation of the said Sections has universal
application to every activity of all religious institutions, and they got
effaced from the statute book altogether?
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
28. On a close reading of the observations and findings in
the Shirur Mutt case itself the conclusion is irresistible that
invalidation of the said Sections was in relation to the religious
activities as guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) (since omitted with
effect from 20.06.1971), 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
Although the Madras High declared the Sections invalid
restrictively; insofar as they relate to petitioner-Mutt therein and
other Mutts of a similar nature, it has to be understood from the
findings of the Apex Court that Sections 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 57 and
63 to 69 of the HR&CE Act insofar as they relate to the religious
activities of all the religious institutions as defined in Section 6(15),
are violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and
hence void under Article 13(1). Subsequent decisions of the Apex
Court referred to above also iterate the same view.
29. The Apex Court has thus invalidated Section 21 of the
HR&CE Act only to the extent to which it violates Articles 25 and 26
of the Constitution of India as it empowers the Commissioner to
enter even place of worship for exercising power conferred by the
Act; and such power was unregulated and unrestricted. The
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021 has no case that the
Commissioner has entered any place of worship. Going by the
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
pleadings in the Writ Petition itself the activities in his office at the
Central Devaswom Office at Valayanadu are matters connected to
the administration of the properties and affairs of the temples to
which he is the trustee. Those are secular activities subservient to
the law, coming under Article 26(d) of the Constitution of India. No
rites and ceremonies connected to the religious denomination,
which alone have insulation under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India, are being practiced in that office. The
petitioner cannot, therefore, contend that Section 21 of the HR&CE
Act could not be invoked by the 2 nd respondent to enter the said
office for the purposes mentioned therein. That apart, Section 28 of
the HR&CE Act gives authority to the 2nd respondent to hold an
inspection of the movable and immovable properties belonging to,
and all records, correspondence, documents, etc. relating to, any
religious institution. In the circumstances, we hold that the
inspection held on 05.10.2021 by the 2 nd respondent is under a
valid law and not liable to be assailed on the ground that Section 21
of the HR&CE Act was not available to be invoked.
30. Section 21(3) of the HR&CE Act reads:
"(3) In entering the premises of a religious institution or place
of worship, the person authorised by, or under sub-section (2)
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
or the police officer referred to in sub-section (2) shall, if
practicable, give notice to the trustee and shall have due
regard to the practices and usages of the institution."
31. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would
submit in the light of the above provision that the 2 nd respondent
should not have shown the audacity of barging into the office under
the guise of inspection without giving notice. That amounted to
denial of natural justice and blatant violation of the autonomy of
the petitioner in the matters of administration of the temple affairs.
It is submitted that this Court in Bhanunni A.C. and others v.
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments
(Administration) Department, Kozhikode and others [2011
(4) KLT 230] in unmistakable terms held that a hereditary trustee
is not a subordinate of the Board and as such a 'raid' should not
have been ventured by the 2nd respondent.
32. In Bhanunni, this Court held that there is sufficient
power given to the Commissioner as well as the authorities under
the Board to ensure that the affairs of the institution are properly
administered, but that does not mean that the hereditary trustee is
under the absolute control or is an employee of the Board. The
mere fact that supervisory powers are given to the Board and its
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
officers does not make the hereditary trustee a subordinate of the
Board. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on a passage from 'A
Treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law' by P.R Sundara Aiyer,
"The Karnavan of the tarwad and uralan exercises his uraima right
not on behalf of the family, but as a personal right and on his own
responsibility. The other members of the family may be possible
future heirs to the trusteeship but have no concurrent right in the
uraima", to contend that the right of the petitioner as trustee
cannot unconscionably be interfered with by the authorities under
the HR&CE Act or junior members of the family whom respondent
Nos.3 and 4 represent.
33. Section 21(3) of the HR&CE Act insists that before
entering the premises of a religious institution, the authorised
person, shall, if practicable, give notice to the trustee. It implies
that it is always proper to give notice. But the provision cannot be
interpreted to mean that a notice is always mandatory. Depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case it has to be decided
whether lack of notice affected validity of the inspection. Being a
disputed question of fact, a decision thereon cannot be had in a
Writ Petition, especially at a stage of show cause notice. We held
above that the 2nd respondent has the empowerment to conduct an
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
inspection. We are therefore of the view that the failure to give
notice by itself would not make the inspection illegal.
34. The next contention of the petitioner is that the show
cause notice, and as the show cause notice is actuated by pre-
determination and bias, and hence the same is liable to be quashed as
the one vitiated in law.
35. When Writ Petitions filed against show cause notices on
similar grounds were dismissed as not maintainable by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, the matter was taken up before the Apex
Court in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC
33]. The Apex Court reversed the said view on the ground that the
show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction and also on the
ground that the respondent already determined the liability of the
appellant and the only question that remains was the quantification
thereof. It was held,
"Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition
questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter
alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been
held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P.
v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179], Special
Director v. Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440],
and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006)
12 SCC 28], but the question herein has to be considered
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
from a different angle, viz. When a notice is issued with
premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable."
36. This Court in Secretary, Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat
v. Anandakumal [2015 (1) KHC 720: 2015 (1) KLT SN 143] has
summarized the precedential position on the adjudicability of a show
cause notice thus:
"16. There is no invariable principle that a show-cause
notice should not be a subject matter of judicial adjudication
under any circumstance. Courts have held time and again
that when the notice (i) suffers from the vice of ultra vires;
(ii) is a fait accompli or premeditated; or (iii) is a product of
malice or mala fides, it is justiciable without the party going
through the procedural rigmarole."
37. In this case, the position is different. We found above
that the inspection held on 05.10.2021 is not illegal. The contention
that the show cause notice is vitiated for that reason cannot
therefore be countenanced. There is no reason to find primafacie
that Ext.P5 was issued on a pre-determination or with bias. In such
circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that W.P.(C) No.23304
of 2021 has to be held to be premature, and not maintainable. The
petitioner is bound to answer Ext.P5 and the 2 nd respondent can
proceed with it, of course, strictly in accordance with law.
38. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
would submit that for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the alternative remedy is not a bar always.
Reliance in this regard has been placed in State of M.P. and others
v. Sanjay Nagayach and others [(2013) 7 SCC 25], where it was
held that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is not barred merely because there is an alternative remedy of
appeal. If the order passed by the authority is arbitrary or in clear
violation of its jurisdiction, the Court can interfere.
39. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
Board as well as the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.3
and 4 in W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021, on the other hand, would rely
on M/s Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar
[2021 (5) KLT 667 (SC)] to fortify their contention that none of
the exceptions to the rule, that if an effective and alternative
remedy is available no writ petition is maintainable, exists in any of
these cases. This decision was rendered after considering all the
previous decisions on the point starting from Whirpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai [(1998) 8
SCC 1]. As such, we do not propose to refer to all those decisions,
although some are placed reliance on by the learned Counsel on
either side. In Magadh Sugar the Apex Court held,
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
"19. While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the
existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the
High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain
contingencies. This principle has been crystallized by this
Court in Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai (1999 (1) KLT OnLine 908 (SC) =
(1998) 8 SCC 1) and Harbanslal Sahni v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. (2003 (1) KLT OnLine 1161 (SC) =
(2003) 2 SCC 107). Recently, in Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2021
(2) KLT OnLine 1158 (SC) = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334)
a two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part
of (Justice D.Y.Chandrachud) has summarized the principles
governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court
in the presence of an alternate remedy. This Court has
observed:
"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement
of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a
Writ Petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power
of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy
is available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
where
(a) the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement
of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of
natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the
High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a
writ petition should not be entertained when an
efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the
right or liability, resort must be had to that particular
statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of
exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact,
the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a Writ
Petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the
view that the nature of the controversy requires the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not
readily be interfered with." (emphasis supplied)
40. Section 99(1) of the HR&CE Act reads: "The State
Government may call for and examine the record of the Board or
Commissioner or any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or any
Area Committee or of any trustee in respect of any proceeding, not
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a
Court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the
regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or
propriety of any decision or order passed therein; and, if, in any
case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or
order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for
reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly."
41. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated
17.10.2012 in WP(C) No. 23885 of 2012 (Kesavan Moosad v.
State of Kerala) has considered the scope of revision under
Section 99 of the HR&CE Act. That was a case relating to an order
of the Commissioner under Section 18 of that Act. It was held,
"The revisional power of Government under Section 99 is not
confined to be as against original orders of the Commissioner.
There is no such statutory embargo in Section 99. Not only
that, the only two interdictions in Section 99 are that an
order which can be subjected to a suit or appeal cannot be
carried to the Government by way of revision. Therefore, the
petitioner has efficacious alternate statutory remedy under
section 99 of the Act."
42. We have delved deep into the materials placed on record
in these matters. There is nothing to find even prima facie that
there has been violation of the principles of natural justice or lack
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
of jurisdiction in issuing Ext.P21 in W.P.(C) No.27286 of 2021 and
Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.27288 of 2021. Ext. P21 in W.P.(C) No.27286
of 2021 was passed by the Commissioner after hearing the parties
in detail. Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.27288 of 2021 was issued by the
Deputy Commissioner invoking the provisions in Ext.P1 scheme, as
per which only the administration of the Temple in question is being
carried out. Correctness or not of those orders is a matter to be
looked into by the Government in exercise of the powers invested
in it under Section 99 of the HR&CE Act after analysing and
appreciating the materials in the file, including the disputed
questions of fact. It may be uncharitable to say that such a
statutory remedy is not effective. Suffice it to say that the
apprehension of the petitioners, that the Revisional Authority may
not act fairly and judicially, is no reason to entertain a Writ Petition.
A plea based on violation of any fundamental right of the respective
petitioners is rather not available in these cases. They do not call in
question the vires of any statutory provision. In the said
circumstances, the petitioners should not have rushed to this Court
at this stage. Hence, we hold that W.P.(C) Nos.27286 and 27288 of
2021 are also not maintainable.
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
The result is: W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.27286 of
2021 and W.P.(C) No.27288 of 2021 are dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23304 of 2021 is bound to answer Ext.P5
therein and the 2nd respondent can proceed with it, of course, strictly in
accordance with law. We make it clear that none of our observations
would trammel the factual and legal contentions of petitioners in the
proceedings before the respective statutory authorities.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
dkr
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23304/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2021
PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD, IN IA 26/121, IA 27/21
AND IA 28/21 IN J2 2994/21
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY
ADV RAJEESH CHANDRAN TO THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT, ZAMORIN'S CENTRAL
DEVASWOM OFFICE, CALICUT TO THE ZAMORIN
RAJA OF CALICUT DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF HE REPRESENTATION DATED
7.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE ZAMORIN RAJA
OF CALICUT TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF
KERALA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.11.2021
ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE ZAMORIN RAJA,
CALICUT.
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27286/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2017.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2017
BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPORT
('PRASHNAM CHARTHU') PROVIDED BY THE
ASTROLOGER, SHRI T. K. UNNI PANICKER
DATED 23.08.2017.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S ORDER DATED
25.08.2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN APPROVAL DATED
01.09.2017 GIVEN BY SHRI SANKARANARAYANAN
NAMBOODIRIPAD, THANDRI OF THE TEMPLE.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.11.2017
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAGES OF
THE QUOTATION.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.11.2017 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2017.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 30.11.2017.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.02.2018
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.03.2018 SEND
BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.40648 OF 2018 DATED 01.02.2019.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT
IN WP(C) NO.12681 OF 2019.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.05.2019
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15901
OF 2019, WP(C) 17124 OF 2019 AND
R.P.NO.407 OF 2019 IN WP(C) NO.40648 OF
2018 DATED 19.12.2019.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED
12.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.3073 OF
2021 DATED 05.03.2021.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
24.04.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITIONS
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AS I.A.NO.26 OF 2021,
I.A.NO.27 OF 2021 AND I.A.NO.28 OF 2021
IN J2/2994/2019.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
24.08.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AS I.A.NO.26 OF 2021, I.A.NO.27 OF 2021
AND I.A.NO.28 OF 2021 IN J2/2994/2019.
W.P.(C) Nos.23304, 27286 & 27288 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27288/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT DATED
25.09.1985 OF THE SCHEME FRAMED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ACT 1951 FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEMPLE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.11.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD (DATED NIL).
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD (DATED NIL).
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2021
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER OF THE TEMPLE.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
11.11.2021 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
