Kerala High Court
The Temple Advisory Committee vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 22 April, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:32894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OMALLUR RAKTHAKNDASWAMY TEMPLE, OMALLUR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ABHILASH RESIDING AT THEKKATTIL HOUSE, IMALLY,
OMALLUR P O PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANILAL
S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , DEVASWOM HEAD
QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
2 THE COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS,
NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695003
3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ARANMULA GROUP OF
DEVASWOM, ARANMULA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689533
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:32894
4 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER
OMALLUR SUB GROUP (RAKTHAKANDESHWARA TEMPLE),
OMALLUR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
5 THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION)
OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM HEAD
QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695003
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI G SANTHOSHKUMAR-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:32894
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner, which is stated to be the Temple Advisory
Committee of the "Omallur Rakthakandaswamy Temple", assails
Ext.P14 order of the 2nd respondent - the Commissioner of the
Travancore Devaswom Board (Commissioner), suspending them
pending an enquiry.
2. Sri.C.S.Manilal - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that
Ext.P6 Bye-Laws governing the constitution and working of the
Temple Advisory Committee (TAC), does not permit the interim
suspension of any such Committee, though conceding that power has
been vested with the 2nd respondent to terminate them after proper
enquiry. He argued that Ext.P14, however, has been issued without
any enquiry having been completed and based merely on speculations
and conjectures and hence that it is liable to be set aside. He
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:32894
concluded, asserting that, had his client been asked about the true
facts before Ext.P14 had been issued, they would have explained that
all allegations against them are untenable and contrary to facts.
3. Sri.Santhosh Kumar - learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), in response, submitted
that Ext.P14 was issued after an enquiry was conducted by his client
through the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, which has confirmed
various deleterious activities in the Temple, contrary to religious
practices. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed;
however, adding that his client intends to hear the petitioner quickly
and to take a decision on the continuance of suspension or otherwise,
which he said will be done not later than ten days from today.
4. We propose to be cautious in what we say further
because, the question whether Ext.P6 Bye-Laws provides for an
interim suspension of the "TAC" or otherwise, is an issue that may
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:32894
require to be considered, however, only after the 2 nd respondent -
Commissioner takes a decision whether such a course is necessary in
this case.
5. We propose to accede to the suggestion of Sri.Santhosh
Kumar that the 2nd respondent - Commissioner will hear the
petitioner, based on their objections to Ext.P14; and that, for such
purpose, the same will be treated only as a show cause notice, so
that all relevant aspects can be considered and a final decision
taken.
6. There can be little doubt that religious places are to be
used for such purposes and nothing else. Any colourable action
otherwise, would erode the trust of the people and their beliefs and
practices. However, any legal action on an allegation of its breach
certainly requires to align with the prescribed and established process
of law.
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:32894
7. In the case at hand, it is the specific case of the
petitioner - apart from their contention that a temporary suspension
is not possible as per the Bye-Laws - that they have not been even
issued with a notice to explain why Ext.P14 should not be issued.
They also have a contention as argued by Sri.C.S.Manilal, that the
alleged report of the Vigilance has not been made available to them.
8. In the afore circumstances, we deem it apposite to allow
this writ petition with the following directions:
(a) We record the submissions of Sri.Santhosh Kumar that
the 2nd respondent - Commissioner will issue a notice to the
petitioner within the next two days.
(b) On such notice being issued, the 2nd respondent -
Commissioner will hear the petitioner and take a final decision as to
the continuation or otherwise of Ext.P14 order; and we clarify that,
for this purpose, the said order will be construed as a show cause
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:32894
notice. This shall be done within a period of ten days from today, as
undertaken by Sri.Santhosh Kumar on behalf of the 2 nd respondent;
and we, further order that if this is not done and the resultant order
not communicated to the petitioner within the above said time limit,
Ext.P14 will continue to be inoperative after it.
9. After we dictated this part of the judgment,
Sri.C.S.Manilal interjected to say that, even the afore exercise would
be of no purpose, because the President of the Board has already
come out on record publically, through Ext.P12 press release, that his
client will be terminated.
10. We do not propose to speak on this allegation at this
stage because, Ext.P12 is a report, which remains unverified as of
now. However, it would be certainly apposite for all Authorities
concerned not to make disclosures unmindful of the statutory scheme.
That said, it is not necessary for us to enter into any kind
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:32894
of notion, that the exercise we have ordered above would not be
done dispassionately by either the Commissioner, or even by the
Board in due course.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ska
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:32894
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16502/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DATED 15/02/2024 ACCORDING
SANCTION TO THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE AUDITED STATEMENTS OF
ACCOUNTS FROM 01/04/2024 TILL 29/09/2024
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DATED
29/11/2024
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED
19/12/2024
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED
28/03/2025
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE BYE LAW PUBLISHED IN THE
GAZETTE DATED 05/06/2012
Exhibit P7 A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WESTERN GOPURAM
Exhibit P8 A PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NORTHERN GOPURAM
Exhibit P9 A CLOSE SHOT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FLAG IN
QUESTION
Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22/03/2025
Exhibit P11 A COPY IF THE REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/04/2025
Exhibit P12 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT OF
'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY DATED 09/04/2025
WP(C) NO. 16502 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:32894
Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 05/04/2025
Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 16/04/2025
