Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs R.V.Babu on 26 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 378 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20495/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT,
2 GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA- SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FINANCE)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 IN WO(C):
1 BIJESH KUMAR M., S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, MARATH HOUSE,
THAMARAYOOR P.O., GURUVAYUR, PIN - 680 505.
2 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
3 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR - 680 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
4 THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYUR - 680101.
ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
. ADV.M.A ABDUL HAKKIM ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ
ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.316/2021, 308/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 316 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10169/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN W.P(C):
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT(DEVASWOM), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA -SPL.G.P
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 ANIL KUMAR K.N., AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O. G. NARAYANAN PILLAI, AMBIKA VILAS, SOUTH
VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA-683105, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
2 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR-
680101, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR-
680101, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4 THE ADMINISTRATOR
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR-
680101, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
4
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ
ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 308 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9808/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 7 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562.
2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-680 003.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA -SPL.G.P
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 IN WP(C):
1 PRADEEP R.S, ALIAS HARI PALOD,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, ROHINI PLAVARA
HOUSE, PALODE NANNIYOD P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562.
2 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 101.
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR-680 101.
6
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYOOR
DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 101.
5 THE COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 101.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 313 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9904/2020
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN W.P(C)
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV.M.R.SREELATHA SPL.G P
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IN W.P(C)
1 M.R. ARUNKUMAR KARANAVAR,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O RADHAKRISHNA KARANAVAR, PANAGATTETH HOUSE,
PILAPUZHA, HARIPPAD P.O.690 514.
2 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR P.O.680 101, THRISSUR
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR-680 101, THRISSUR
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022 ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 348 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9802/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN W.P(C)
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF DEVASWOM, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA- SPL.GP
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 IN W.P(C)
1 PRASANNA KUMAR.P.,
NAVANEETHAM, NADUVATTOM P.O., PALLIPPAD, HARIPPAD,
ALAPPUZHA-690 512.
2 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM
BOARD, GURUVAYOOR-680 101.
3 COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASWOM BUILDING, GURUVAYOOR-680 101.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 332 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9805/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WP(C)
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001
BY ADV.M.R. SREELATHA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 IN W.P(C)
1 K.S.R.MENON AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE G.K NAIR,
RESIDING AT A1 A7, PERIYAR HERMITAGE,
COMPANIPADI, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -683016
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
SREE PADMAM, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR
2 DISTRICT PIN 680101
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE MANAGING
3 COMMITTEE, SREE PADMAM, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680101
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
10
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 314 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9887/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN W.P(C)
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 IN W.P(C)
1 MOHANKUMAR B
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O LATE BALANKUTTY, LAKSHMI VILAS, BUNGLAW,
CHAKKUMKANDAM P.O.PALUVOI(VIA) THRISSUR-689 522.
2 THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, SREE PADMAM, EAST
NADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 101
4 THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, SREE PADMAM, EAST NADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR,
PIN-680 101.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
12
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 317 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9765/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN W.P(C)
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT FOR DEVASWOM,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA-SPL. GOVERN PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 IN W.P(C)
1 A.NAGESH, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ATTOUR HOUSE,
THALAVANIKKARA,
KONIKARA P.O., THRISSUR -680306
2 SREE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM COMMITTEE,
GURUVAYOOR,REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
OFFICE OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM
COMMITTEE,GURUVAYOOR-680101.
3 SREE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,GURUVAYUR
DEVASWOM,GURUVAYOOR-680101.
4 THE COMMISSIONER,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYOOR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.
14
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 349 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9888/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IN W.P(C)
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 12 IN W.P(C)
1 BIJESH KUMAR M.,
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
MARATH HOUSE, THAMARAYOOR P.O., GURUVAYOOR, PIN-680505.
2 THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
3 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR-680 101, REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
4 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR-680101.
16
5 K.B. MOHANDAS,
ADVOCATE, T.C.37/1432, KOOLIYATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE,
UDAYA, CIVIL LINES ROAD, POOTHOLE P.O., CHUNGAM,
THRISSUR, PIN-680004.
6 A.V. PRASANTH,
AKAMPADI HOUSE, BRAHMAKULAM P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN-680104.
7 K. AJITH
MUNDODITHARA, VADAKKENADA, VAIKKOM P.O., PIN-686141.
8 K.V. SHAJI,
KIZHAKKAPURATHU VEEDU, CHENGAL, KALADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-683574.
9 E.P.R. VESALA,
PANKAJALAYAM, CHATTUKAPRA P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670592.
10 BRAHMASREE,
MALLISSERI PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPPADU,
MALLISSERIMANA, GURUVAYOOR, PIN-680101.
11 SESIR S.V.,
ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR, PIN-680101.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 275 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9780/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT FOR DEVASWOM,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 IN WP(C):
1 R.V.BABU, S/O.VISWANATHAN,GENERAL SECRETARY,
HINDU AIKYA VEDI KERALA (REG.NO.TVM/TC/1332-2017),
RESIDING AT NALINAM,MOOKAMBIKA ROAD,
NORTH PARAVOOR,ERNAKULAM,KERALA-683513.
2 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYOOR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680101.
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 101.
18
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680101.
5 THE COMMISSIONER,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYOOR.P.O,
GURUVAYOOR DISTRICT,PIN-680101.
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.
VIVEK A.V.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 354 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9800/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 6 IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680003.
BY ADV M.R.SREELATHA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 7 IN WP(C):
1 KERALA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI,
REG.NO.142/77, JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY (NARAYANAN
KUTTY.K, S/O. KUNHUNNI NAIR, AGED 65, MADATHIL HOUSE,
VALORINGAL,PUNNAPPALA POST,
VANDOOR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679328).
20
2 THE GURUVAYOOR DEWASOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680101.
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680101.
4 ADVOCATE .K.B.MOHANDAS,
CHAIRMAN, GUVURAYOOR DEVASWOM,
TC 37/1432, KOOLIYATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE,
UDAYA, POOTHOLE, THISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680004.
5 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,
EAST NADA BRANCH, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV.T.K.VIPINDAS
ADV.M.ABDUL HAKKIM
ADV.R.KRISHNARAJ , ADV.S.SANAL KUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.378/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 26.05.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
21
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022
[RP Nos.378/2021, 316/2021, 308/2021, 313/2021, 348/2021,
332/2021, 314/2021, 317/2021, 349/2021, 275/2021, 354/2021]
Shircy V, J.
A devotee/worshipper of Lord Gurvayurappan
preferred a Writ Petition as W.P(C)No.20495 of 2019
challenging the correctness and legality of certain
administrative decisions of the Guruvayur Devaswom
Managing Committee (for short 'G.D.M.C'). Some other
writ petitions were also filed by different persons seeking
similar reliefs. Taking note of the conflicting views in
W.P(C)No.19035 of 2019 and in C.K Rajan's case (AIR
1994 Kerala 179) an order of reference was made by the
Division Bench on 24.09.2019 for consideration by a Full
Bench. The Full Bench treating W.P(C)No.20495 of 2019,
as the leading case considered all the other writ
petitions also seeking similar reliefs and answered the
reference by a common order dated 18.12.2020. Feeling
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order of the
Full Bench in the writ petitions, the above review
petitions are filed.
2. Heard Adv.M.R.Sreelatha, Spl.Government
Pleader, for the review petitioners, Adv.T.K.Vipindas,
Adv.M.A Abdul Hakkim, Adv.S.Sanal Kumar and
Adv.R.Krishnaraj, the learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. W.P(C) No.20495 of 2019 was filed by a devotee
of Guruvayoor temple challenging certain administrative
orders with a prayer to set aside the decision of
'G.D.M.C' to donate Rs.5 crores to the Chief Minister's
Distress Relief Fund (C.M.D.R.F for short).
4. W.P.(C)No.19035 of 2019 was filed by a devotee
of Guruvayurappan and a member of a Hindu Service
organization registered under the Trust Act challenging
the decision of G.D.M.C to donate Rs.5 crores to the
C.M.D.R.F. The facts of the case would reveal that during
the year 2018 there was an unprecedented heavy flood
and landslides in Kerala causing havoc throughout the
State and thousands of people have been evacuated
from their residence and many people have lost their life
and savings in the calamity. Then the G.D.M.C decided
to contribute an amount of Rs. 5 crores to C.M.D.R.F to
help and rehabilitate the needy and deserving people.
The decision of the Committee was ratified by the
Commissioner of Guruvayur Devaswom. The said decision
was challenged by a devotee by filing the writ petition. It
was dismissed by a Division Bench by a judgment dated
25.07.2019. While dismissing the writ petition the
Division Bench observed in paragraph No.10 and 11 as
follows:
"10. Section 27 thus deals with the authority of the
Committee to incur expenditure for certain purposes.
Going by the said provision, the Committee may, after
making adequate provision for the purposes referred to
in sub-section (2) of Section 21, incur expenditure out of
the funds of the Devaswom on all or any of the purposes
mentioned under Clauses (a) to (g) therein. The very
caption of the Section, "Authority of Committee to incur
expenditure for certain purposes" would prima facie
indicate that the Section dealt with the authority to incur
expenditures not exhaustively, but for certain purposes
only. True that head-note cannot be conclusive and
cannot be taken as determinative of the scope of power
imbedded in an empowering provision in a statue.
Certainly, in that regard, the contents of the relevant
provision have to be analysed. But before that, one
aspect has to be taken note of. Section 27, as already
noted, deals with the authority of the Committee to incur
expenditure for certain purposes and it is not a provision
specifically prohibiting incurring of expenses for any
other purpose. In such circumstances, if there is nothing
in Clauses (a) to (g) in Section 27 of the Act indicating
that the Committee got authority only to incur expenses
in respect of the purposes very specifically mentioned
under Clauses (a) to (g) thereunder, then the word
'certain purposes' used in the head-note of Section 27
can be taken as a clear indicative of the non-exhaustive
nature of items/issues wherein the Committee can have
authority to use the funds of the Devaswom. We may
hasten to add that we are not indicating that the
Committee is having power to doll out the funds of the
Devaswom in any manner they like. In the decision in
Dr.Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath
Kunte and others (AIR 1996 SC 1113), the Apex Court
held that ordinarily Hindutwa is understood as a way of
life or a state of mind and it is not equated with or
understood as religious Hindu Fundamentalism. Further,
it was held "the word 'Hindutva' is used and understood
as a synonym of 'Indianisation' i.e., development of
uniform culture by obliterating the differences between
all the cultures co-existing in the country." Hindu religion
is said to have born out of the principles of Sanathana
Dharma. Hinduism is all about bestowing attention to
everything with great reverence and perceiving what best
can be done. All the aforesaid matters are to be borne in
mind while considering the aforesaid question.
11. Taking into account all such circumstances, we
are of the considered view that this is not a case where
this Court should exercise the discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere
with contribution made by the 2nd respondent, which was
ratified by the 3rd respondent, for the aforesaid purpose
and to direct the 1st respondent to return the same with
interest to Guruvayur Devaswom Fund."
5. C.K.Rajan's case (AIR 1994 Kerela 179) was a
public interest litigation initiated on a complaint
addressed to a learned Judge of this court who was then
heading the Devaswom Bench. Among so many
allegations raised regarding the administration of the
temple it was also alleged that though the Managing
committee was not authorised to donate funds of the
Devaswom for any purpose, donations were made without
any authority to the Federation Cup Football
Tournament, Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Matha
Sauhardha Sammelan, Saksharatha etc. Regarding the
said payments, the Division Bench observed that the
payments will not come within the scope of Section 27 of
the Guruvayur Devaswom Act,1978 (Act of 1978 for
short) and Section 27 does not authorize the managing
committee to make such payments. Though the judgment
in C.K.Rajan's case was challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at the instance of G.D.M.C., the decision
of the Division Bench was confirmed in the Judgment
reported as Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee
v. Rajan [2003 (7) SCC 546].
6. The point deduced by the Full Bench for
consideration on the basis of the order of reference in
W.P.(C) No. 20495 of 2019 is whether the G.D.M.C and
the commissioner have the authority under the Act of
1978 to part with Devaswom funds to C.M.D.R.F as done
as per Exts. P1, P2, P4 and P5 under challenge. So the
legality of the administrative decision of G.D.M.C with
reference to the various provisions of the Act of 1978
especially with Section 27, was required to be resolved
by a Full Bench in view of the conflict in the aforesaid
decisions.
7. By the common order dated 18.12.2020 the Full
Bench after elaborately considering the various provisions
of Guruvayur Devaswom Act 1978 especially clauses (a)
to (g) of Section 27 observed that none of the
provisions of the Act, authorizes the G.D.M.C or the
Administrator or the Commissioner to contribute or part
with or give away in any manner any amount from the
funds belonging to Guruvayoor Devaswom either to
C.M.D.R.F or to any Government agency. Further it was
observed that without noticing the ratio in C.K.Rajan's
case and the legal implication of certain relevant
provisions of the Act, the Division Bench refused to
interfere with the decision of G.D.M.C contributing the
amount to C.M.D.R.F and dismissed W.P.(C) No.19035 of
2019.
In paragraph No.95 it was observed as follows:
"95. On a reading of the judgments in C.K Rajan's case
and in W.P.(C) No.19035 of 2019, it will be clear that the
pronouncement in C.K.Rajan's case touching on the
interpretation of Section 27 of the Act of 1978 was not
considered in the later decision. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to hold that the later decision was rendered per
incuriam".
8. The reference was answered observing that the
view adopted by the Division Bench in W.P(C) No.19035
of 2019 interpreting Section 27 of the Act of 1978 is
legally unsound and unsustainable. Overruling the
decision of the Division Bench, the Full Bench returned
the Writ petition for disposal by the Division Bench. The
concluding paragraph of the common order of the Full
Bench is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
"96. *****
(I) All the properties, including movable and immovable
properties and money, dedicated to or endowed in the
name of Lord Guruvayurappan or any property acquired in
any manner by Guruvayur Devaswom shall vest in the idol
of Lord Guruvayurappan, consecrated in Sree Krishna
Temple, Guruvayur.
(II) G.D.M.C constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 1978
is legally bound to administer, control and manage all the
properties belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The
Administrator and the Commissioner shall also function
within the frame work of the statute.
(III) The legal status of G.D.M.C constituted under Section
3 of the Act of 1978 is that of a trustee in management of
the Devaswom properties and the Committee is duty bound
to scrupulously follow the stipulations contained in the Act
of 1978. Unless a contrary intention, either expressly or by
necessary implication, arises from the provisions of the
statute in any particular subject or context, G.D.M.C is
legally bound to administer and manage the Devaswom and
its properties in accordance with the settled legal principles
relating to the administration of Hindu Religious Trusts.
(IV) G.D.M.C being the trustee in management of
Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties
with utmost care and caution. In view of the settled legal
principles that the trustees cannot delegate their powers
and duties to any other person, we hold that G.D.M.C
cannot delegate its powers, functions and duties under the
Act of 1978 to the State Government or any other entity.
(V) None of the provisions in the Act of 1978, including
Section 27, authorises G.D.M.C or the Administrator or the
Commissioner to contribute or part with or give away in any
manner any amount from the funds belonging to Guruvayur
Devaswom, either to C.M.D.R.F or to any other
Governmental agency, for any purpose specified under the
Act of 1978, including Section 27 of the Act, since it is the
non-negotiable obligation of G.D.M.C, as a trustee, to
perform the duties and obligations enumerated therein all
by itself or, in an exigency, directly under its supervision
and control through other means.
(VI) Section 27(c) of the Act of 1978 relating to medical
relief, water supply and other sanitary arrangements for the
worshippers and pilgrims cannot be read and understood
detached from that part in the clause relating to the
construction of buildings for the accommodation of
worshipers and pilgrims. Scope of Section 27(c) cannot be
widened so as to provide medical relief, water supply and
other sanitary arrangements as contemplated under the
impugned decisions/orders.
(VII) View adopted by the Division Bench in W.P(C)
No.19035 of 2019 on Section 27 of the Act of 1978 is
legally unsound and unsustainable. We overrule the
decision.
(VIII) The Registry shall post all the Writ Petitions for
hearing and disposal in accordance with the roster."
9. The said common order is sought to be reviewed
by the review petitioners. The review applications are
opposed by the original petitioners/respondents. We have
considered the rival submissions in detail to ascertain
whether there is any scope to justify the exercise of
review jurisdiction. It is vehemently contended by the
review petitioners, ie; the respondents 1 and 2 in
W.P(C)No.20495 of 2019 and the respective respondents
in the other writ petitions that the Full Bench has erred in
holding that Section 27 of the Act of 1978 does not
authorize G.D.M.C in donating money for the benefit of
worshippers beyond a particular geographical limit. The
narrow interpretation given by the Full Bench to Section
27 of the Act is not correct as victims throughout the
State includes the worshippers of Lord Guruvayurappan.
The next argument raised is that for ritualistic functions
of the temple, articles such as flowers, jaggery, rice etc
are sourced from people spanning all localities and the
flood and Covid 19 have affected its' production. It is
vehemently submitted that the Guruvayur Sree Krishna
Temple Committee owes a duty to contribute and mitigate
the losses caused by acts of God in times of distress.
State had used distress fund to reconstruct places of
worship for public welfare. Donating funds to C.M.D.R.F
by G.D.M.C is in tune with the duties vested on the
committee under Section 10(b) and (g) of the Act of
1978. Therefore, the donations made by G.D.M.C are in
tune with Section 27(c) read with the duties of the
Devaswom under Section 10(b) and (g) of the Act of
1978.
10. The learned counsel for the review petitioners
further submitted that under the Disaster Management
Act, 2005 also, the decisions of the Committee donating
money to the C.M.D.R.F to help the needy and deserving
population affected by the flood of 2018 and the ongoing
havoc of Covid 19 pandemic, are not liable to be
interfered with. As donations are intended to help the
needy people including Guruvayur worshippers and
pilgrims who faced extreme difficulties, the decisions of
G.D.M.C are strictly in tune with Section 27 read with
the duties of the Devaswom under Section 10(b) and (g)
of the Act of 1978.
11. At the outset, it is to be noted such a ground
was not raised in the review petitions. So, in short, the
said argument was without pleadings. Still we make it
clear that there was no requisition by the National
Authority or State Executive Committee or District
authority to the G.D.M.C for any donation of funds to
meet the contingency/emergency.
12. An argument was also raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the review petitioners, that the
Government cannot be compelled, in the existing
circumstances, to refund the amounts voluntarily donated
to the account of C.M.D.R.F. with interest as noticed in
the order of reference.
13. We notice that there is no such direction, issued
by the Full Bench and the Full Bench has only answered
the question with regard to the power of the G.D.M.C. to
make the donation to the C.M.D.R.F. Moreover, we also
notice that the said arguments raised by the learned
Special Government Pleader does not find a place in the
pleadings raised in the review petition. We, therefore,
find it unnecessary to consider the said contention.
14. It is doubtless that the G.D.M.C can function
only in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1978,
a special act constituted for the proper administration of
the Guruvayur Devaswom. It is also necessary to
observe that Chapter lV of the Act deals with Budget,
Accounts and Audit. So also it is significant to note that
there is nothing to show that the committee has acted in
terms of Section 21 (1) and the commissioner as per the
terms of Section 21 (3) of the Act of 1978 before taking
a decision to donate the funds of Devaswom to C.M.D.R.F.
It is appropriate to observe that G.D.M.C is holding the
status of a trustee and is bound to act strictly as per the
provisions of the Act of 1978.
15. Being relevant for adjudication of the present
petitions, it would be apt to reiterate the relevant
provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus:
"114. Review - Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved,
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been
preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed by this Code, or.
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the
Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the
Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
16. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC relates to the
jurisdiction of the Court to review its' judgment. The
said provision reads as hereunder:
"1. Application for review of judgment - (1)
Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or order made against him, may apply
for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except
where the ground of such appeal is common to the
applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent,
he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which
he applies for the review.
[Explanation- The fact that the decision on a
question of law on which the judgment of the Court is
based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent
decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not
be a ground for the review of such judgment.]
17. A reading of the relevant provision makes it
abundantly clear that the scope of review is very limited
and only if there is any 'error apparent on the face of the
record' the court can exercise its powers of review and
modify its judgment. As per the settled position of law
laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions,
the power of review can be exercised to correct an error
apparent on the face of record. Some decisions quite
relevant for our purpose are cited below.
18. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and
others v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960
KHC 567] it was observed in paragraph 17 as follows:
" ...........An error which has to be established by a long
drawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record........"
19. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [AIR
1964 (SC 1372)], it was observed as follows:
"11. ....... A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider
that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this
difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would
suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate
argument one could point to the error and say here is a
substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and
there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about
it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record
would be made out."
20. In Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (1975
KHC 905) it was held as follows;
" A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission
or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
judicial fallibility."
21. A similar view was taken in Smt. Meera
Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [AIR 1995 SC
455] wherein it was held as:
"12. In our view the aforesaid approach of the Division
Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that
it has overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47 R.1, CPC.
By merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier
Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not
become a patent error or error apparent in view of the
settled legal position indicated by us earlier. In substance,
the review Bench has reappreciated the entire evidence, sat
almost as Court of appeal and has reversed the findings
reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier
Division Bench findings regarding C.S. Plot No.74 were found
to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the
same, as that would be the function of an appellate court.
Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to
point out how the reasoning adopted and conclusion reached
by the Review Bench can be supported within the narrow and
limited scope of Order 47, R.1, CPC. Right or wrong, the
earlier Division Bench judgment had become final so far as
the High Court was concerned. It could not have been
reviewed by reconsidering the entire evidence with a view to
finding out the alleged apparent error for justifying the
invocation of review powers. Only on that short ground,
therefore, this appeal is required to be allowed."
22. Same view was taken in Parsion Devi and
others v. Sumitri Devi and others [((1997) 8 SCCC
715] as under :
''9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of
the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal
in disguise".
23. In Lily Thomas V. Union of India (2000 KHC
536) it was observed in paragraph 58 as :
"58. ........Error contemplated under the rule must
be such which is apparent on the face of the record and
not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It
must be error of inadvertence. No such error has been
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties seeking review of the judgment. The only
arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting
S.494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental
rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for
reviewing the judgment. The words "any other sufficient
reason appearing in O.47 R.1 CPC" must mean "a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified
in the rule" as was held in Chhaju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922
PC 112) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholics v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius
(AIR 1954 SC 526). Error apparent on the face of the
proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance
or disregard of the provisions in law. In T.C Basappa v.
T.Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440) this Court held that such
error is an error which is a parent error and not a mere
wrong decision".
24. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others
[ (2013) 8 SCC 320], it was held as follows:
"14. Review of the earlier order cannot be done
unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on
the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results
in miscarriage of justice."
In paragraphs 17 to 19 it was held as follows:
"17. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court
to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different
conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at
on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review
petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent
on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto.
18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter.
The power of review cannot be confused with appellate
power which enables a superior court to correct all errors
committed by a subordinate court.........
19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal
and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere
disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the
ground for invoking the same............."
25. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria and
others [(2013) 15 SCC 534] very same view was taken
and it was held as follows:
"6.......The review jurisdiction is extremely limited
and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the
record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The
mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is
self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face.
Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise.
The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on
merits."
26. Coming back to the facts of the case it is
pertinent to note that the review petitioners mainly
contended that the Full Bench has committed an error by
holding that the scope of Section 27(c) of the Act 1978
cannot be widened so as to provide medical relief, water
supply and other sanitary arrangements for the
worshippers and pilgrims, located away from a reasonable
distance of the temple premises. It is submitted that as
far as a worshipper /pilgrim is concerned his
geographical proximity has no significance at all and the
benefit necessarily must go into or lean in favour of
others also. It has to be noted that on sound
reasoning based on the provisions of the Act, the Full
Court observed that Section 27(c) consists of 2 parts,
of which first clause deals with the medical relief, water
supply and sanitary arrangements for the worshippers
and pilgrims and the second clause relates to the
construction of the building for their accommodation.
Therefore, the 1st part cannot be detached from the 2nd
part which relates to the construction for accommodation
of the pilgrims. The plain language of the provision gives
a definite meaning that, it is to provide convenient
accommodation for the worshippers when they visit the
temple to offer prayers. Providing convenient
accommodation to pilgrims and worshippers are, to
facilitate them to offer prayers in the temple and for that
constructions are required. Obviously, the said clause
cannot be treated as one meant for the benefit of
worshippers of lord Guruvayurappan as millions of
worshippers are residing all over the country. It would
be too far-fetched to give such an interpretation to the
said clause. Devotees who repose faith on lord
Guruvayurappan are spread all over the country.
Therefore, the scope of Section 27(c) cannot be widened
as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for the
State. If the contention of the learned Government
Pleader is accepted, it will be against the principles of
precedent in view of the ratio in C.K Rajan's case. (See
State of U.P. v Ajay Kumar Sharma (2016)15 SCC289)
27. So also, on a true interpretation of Section 10(b)
of the Act of 1978 which is simple, clear and precise,
G.D.M.C has to provide facilities for proper performance
of worships by the worshippers. The words in Section
10(g) is also unambiguous that the committee is bound to
do all such things as may be incidental and conducive to
the efficient management of the affairs of Devaswom and
the convenience of worshippers. What is made clear by
the order is that, as the committee has been constituted
as per Section 3 of the Act, the committee can administer,
control and manage Devaswom in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the same has to be applied
strictly. G.D.M.C has to act scrupulously in terms of the
provisions of the Act.
28. In short, what is echoed in the common order
of the Full Bench, noticing or following the ratio in
C.K.Rajan's case, is that the movables, the immovable
properties, the money dedicated or endowed in the name
of Lord Guruvayurappan shall vest in the idol of
Guruvayurappan consecrated in Sree Krishna Temple
Guruvayur and the status G.D.M.C is that of a trustee in
management of devaswom properties and as such is
bound to perform its duties and act as per the provisions
of the Act, 1978. It is also clarified that the view adopted
by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.19035 of 2019 on
Section 27 of the Act 1978 without considering the legal
implication of certain provisions of the Act is
unsustainable for the reasons enunciated therein. The
said answer to the reference made by the Full Bench
mainly following the ratio in C.K.Rajan's case and the
principles of precedent, could not be termed as an error
apparent on the face of the record which warrants
correction/modification by allowing the review petitions.
The essence of repeated pronouncements made by the
Apex Court on the subject affirms that a review
jurisdiction is very narrow and limited and
reconsideration or reappreciation or rehearing of matter
on merits are not permitted. Applying the law laid down
in the aforesaid decisions regarding the jurisdiction of
review applications, to the facts of the case on hand, we
find that none of the reasons projected in support of the
review petitions would make out any error apparent on
the face of the record to justify an interference by
exercising the review jurisdiction.
29. Therefore, we find that all the review petitions
preferred by the respondents 1 and 2, the State
Government, are without any merits and are liable to be
dismissed.
Accordingly, all the review petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
JUDGE
smm
