Malabar Devaswom Board vs Sree Lakshmi Venkitesh Temple
2024 Latest Caselaw 27087 Ker

Kerala High Court

Malabar Devaswom Board vs Sree Lakshmi Venkitesh Temple on 6 September, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                    &

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946

                          RP NO. 332 OF 2022

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2018 IN WP(C) NO.27520 OF

2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HOUSE FED COMPLEX,
            ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 006.

    2       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
            MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 006.

    3       SECRETARY,
            MALABAR TEMPLE EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOZHIKODE
            673 006.


            BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            SREE LAKSHMI VENKITESH TEMPLE,
            HOSDURG, KANHANGAD 671 315, REP. BY ITS MANAGING
            TRUSTEE, SRI.B. VASANTHA SHENOY.


            SRU S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU


     THIS    REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2024:KER:69403
RP NO. 332 OF 2022

                                   2


                             O R D E R

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

This petition, seeking review of the

judgment of this Court dated 27.09.2018, is

impelled within a very narrow compass; and in

fact, is not opposed by Sri.S.B.Premachandra

Prabhu - learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Sri.K.Mohanakannan - learned

Counsel for the petitioners - Devaswom Board,

submitted that his client is aggrieved by the

judgment only to the limited extent of it

appearing therein that a demand ought to be

made by his client for the statutory levy. He

argued that no such demand is required to be

made; and therefore, that the Temples are bound

to honour it, however, subject to any objection

that they may make with respect to the actual

services to be offered by his client. He then

explained that, an imputation, that services 2024:KER:69403 RP NO. 332 OF 2022

have not been offered by his client, can never

be normally countenanced because, just as the

levy is automatic, such services are also bound

to be given by them as per law.

3. Sri.S.B.Premachandra Prahbu -

learned counsel for the respondent, submitted

that, if the contention of the petitioner is

only to the afore, then he would not stand in

the way of this Court appropriately reviewing

the judgment because, his contention was not

that there should be a demand for levy every

time, but solely that once his client honours

such levy and makes an objection that the same

is either disproportionate or excessive, or

that the services enjoined had not been

offered, then it should be considered in its

proper perspective.

4. It is so obvious that there is no

real controversy between the parties at this 2024:KER:69403 RP NO. 332 OF 2022

stage, except that this Court has recorded

therein that, in future when a demand is made,

the competent Authority will have to consider

any objections that may follow it. Since it is

without contest that the requirement of payment

of levy by a Temple of Religious Institution

does not require a demand - it being statutory

in nature, that part of the judgment will

require to be modified.

5. However, it must be recorded that

it was the intent of this Court that even

objections raised against the quantum of levy,

on the ground that requisite services are not

being offered, will certainly have to be

decided by the competent Authority of the

Dewaswom Board; but not in an adjudicatory

manner, but as an executive action.

6. Since both sides are in consent to

the course above proposed, we allow this review 2024:KER:69403 RP NO. 332 OF 2022

petition, modifying our observations in

paragraph 12 of the judgment; and making it

clear that the Dewaswom Board is not required

to issue demand for the purpose of levy and

that this is an automatic and statutory

requirement to be honoured by the Temple or the

Religious Institution.

Of course, the further directions in the

judgment, that the Temple or Religious

Institutions can raise an objection that the

Dewaswom Board is not offering them requisite

services; and that in such event, the competent

Authority will consider it as per law, is left

unaltered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

                                             SOPHY THOMAS
   SAS                                          JUDGE