Kerala High Court
The Karuvannur Vettukunnathukkavu ... vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 8 August, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
WP(C) No. 16548 of 2025 1 2025:KER:60389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16548 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
THE KARUVANNUR VETTUKUNNATHUKKAVU
GROUP DEVASWOM KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RAVEENDRAN. M.R. ,
S/O. RAMAN,
MUTHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUVANNUR,
THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680711
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
SRI.K.S.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680001
2 THE DEVASWOM OFFICER
INTERIM TRUSTEE ARATTUPUZHA DEVASWOM, URAKAM,
ARATTUPUZHA.P.O.,
THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680562
3 K.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
S/O. NARAYANAN,KORAMB MANA,
MOORKANADU,
THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680711
2025:KER:60389
WPC No. 16548 of 2025
2
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI
SMT.REMYA V.A.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No. 16548 of 2025 2025:KER:60389
3
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
The Karuvannur Vettukunnathukkavu Group Devaswom Kshethra
Samrakshana Samithy, the petitioner herein, represented by its Secretary, is
functioning as the Joint Interim Trustee of the Vettukunnathukkavu Group
Devaswom. The petitioner was appointed in terms of Ext. P2 Order No.
E.1671/1979 dated 28.06.1979 issued by the Devaswom Board.
2. It appears that a complaint was lodged by the 3rd respondent, which
prompted the Vigilance Department of the Devaswom to conduct an enquiry.
Pursuant to such enquiry, a detailed report was submitted before the Chief
Vigilance Officer on 09.01.2025. On the strength of the said report, the Board, on
a prima facie evaluation, concluded that certain activities which has nothing to do
with the functioning of the temple were being carried out in violation of
established norms, and that certain trees within the temple premises had been
felled and removed without obtaining the sanction or approval of the Board.
3. In these circumstances, proceedings under Section 87 of the
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ("TCHRI Act" for brevity)
were initiated. The Board deputed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry into
the affairs of the Institution.
4. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of
2025:KER:60389
hearing was afforded to them prior to the passing of Ext. P3 order. It is their
categorical contention that the Board's resolution, as well as Ext. P3, suffers from
legal infirmities and is unsustainable in law. Based on these allegations, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking,
inter alia, the following reliefs:
"(i) Writ of Certiorari quashing Ext.P3 order issued by the 1st respondent
as it being illegal in the interest of justice.
(ii) Call for the records leading to the Decision No.34 of the 1st
respondent, Devaswom Board Dated 22.02.2025 and quash the same
being illegal in the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other Writ or order that this Honourable Court deems fit in the
interest of justice.
(iv) Dispense with the filing of English translation of the documents in
vernacular language."
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein it is
stated that, consequent upon the resignation of Sri K.N. Narayanan Namboothiri,
who was appointed as the trustee of the Vettukunnathukavu Devaswom, a scheme
of management was directed to be framed in terms of Chapter IX of the
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ("TCHRI Act"). Pending
enquiry and finalisation of the scheme, the petitioner was appointed as joint
WPC No. 16548 of 2025 2025:KER:60389
interim trustee for a period of one year on condition that the petitioner shall be
directly responsible to the 1st respondent board in all matters relating to the
management of the devaswom. According to the 1st respondent, on the strength
of the report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, a statutory enquiry into the
affairs of the Devaswom under Section 87 of the TCHRI Act was ordered as is
evident from Exhibit P3. It is further stated that the statute does not mandate a
pre-decisional hearing for the petitioner before issuance of an order under Section
87. It is also pointed out that an enquiry under Section 99 of the TCHRI Act has
been ordered, and before the Board takes a final decision, the petitioner will be
heard in terms of Section 87(2).
6. The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit reiterating his
contentions.
7. From the submissions advanced by both sides, it appears that the
prime grievance of the petitioner is that, prior to the passing of Ext. P3, no
opportunity of hearing was afforded. From Ext. P2, it is evident that the petitioner
was appointed as an interim trustee pursuant to the resignation of the original
trustee, Sri K.N. Narayanan Namboothiri, and that such appointment was only for
a period of one year. Certain complaints were subsequently received, prompting
the Vigilance Department to conduct an enquiry. Although Ext. P3 states that the
trustees have been "removed," what is, in fact, contemplated is only the
suspension of trustees under Section 87(3) of the Act. Furthermore, Section 87(2)
clearly mandates that the Board shall hear the parties concerned before passing
2025:KER:60389
any order pursuant to the enquiry. In this view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that no interference is warranted at this stage.
8. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent that this Court had granted an interim order, and that, in terms
thereof, the administration is still being carried on by the petitioner. As we are not
inclined to interfere with Exhibit P3, all consequences pursuant to Exhibit P3 shall
ensue henceforth.
With the above clarification, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
