Kerala High Court
The Temple Advisory Committee vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 26 August, 2025
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 1 2025:KER:65249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32234 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
HE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
T
OMALLUR RAKTHAKANDASWAMY TEMPLE, OMALLUR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ABHILASH
S/O RAMESH, AGED 41, RESIDING AT THEKKATTIL HOUSE,
IMALLY, OMALLUR P O PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1
HE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
T
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2
HE COMMISSIONER,
T
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3
HE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
T
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ARANMULA GROUP OF DEVASWOM,
ARANMULA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689533
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 2 2025:KER:65249
4
HE SUB GROUP OFFICER,
T
OMALLUR SUB GROUP (RAKTHAKANDESHWARA TEMPLE), OMALLUR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
ADV. G.BIJU, SC FOR TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
HIS
T WRIT
PETITION
(CIVIL)
HAVINGCOME
UP
FOR
ADMISSION
ON
26.08.2025,
THE
COURT
ON THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 3 2025:KER:65249
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
The petitioner herein is the Temple Advisory Committee of the
Rakthakandaswamy Temple, Omallur. The Committee assumedofficeon14.02.2024,
anditstermissettoexpireon15.02.2026.ThepetitionerhasapproachedthisCourt
seeking to quash Exts. P16, P17, and P19, and for other incidental reliefs.
2. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 16502 of
2025 before this Court, assailing the order passed by the Commissioner of the
Travancore Devaswom Board, placing the Committee under interim suspension
pending an enquiry. The allegation was that, during its tenure, the Committee
permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct Shakhas within the
temple premises, and also allowed the said organisation to use the auditorium and
stage for its activities. It was further alleged that saffron flags were hoisted at the
four entrances of the temple, which actions had been prohibited by this Court. The
flagswhichwereremovedwererestoredwiththeimpliedsanctionofthecommitteeis
yet another allegation.
3. ADivisionBenchofthisCourt,byExt.P15judgment,disposedofthe
aforesaid Writ Petition, by noting the contention of the petitioner that a temporary
suspension is not contemplated under the bye-laws. This Court also noted that the
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 4 2025:KER:65249
alleged report of the vigilance was also not made available to the petitioner.
Considering the above aspects, the Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the
Commissioner to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within two days. The Court
furtherdirectedthatafinaldecisionbetakenregardingthecontinuationorotherwise
ofExt.P14order.Itwasclarifiedthattheinterimsuspensionordershallbetreatedas
a show cause notice, and the Commissioner was directed to take a final decision
withintendays.TheCourtmadeitclearthatifthesaidexercisewasnotcarriedout
within the stipulated time, Ext. P14 would continue to be inoperative thereafter.
4. OnewouldhavethoughtthattheCommissionerwouldhavetakennote
of the directions issued by this Court and acted accordingly. Instead, the
Commissioner proceeded to issue Ext. P16 dated 26.04.2025 ordering the interim
suspension of the committee. A show causenoticewasissuedtoconsiderwhysuch
interim suspension is not made absolute. In pursuance of the same, Ext. P17 show
causenoticewasissued,towhichthepetitionersubmittedExt.P18objection.Finally,
by Ext. P19 order dated 13.08.2024, the interim order of suspension was made
absolute.
5. Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the entire exercise has been carried out by the respondents in clear
violationofthedirectionsissuedbythisCourtinExt.P15judgment.Accordingtothe
learnedcounsel,thisCourttooknoteofthefactthattherespondenthadnopowerto
issue interim suspension, and it was in the said circumstances that the specific
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 5 2025:KER:65249
directionswereissued;toservenoticewithintwodaysandtopassfinalorderswithin
ten days. He contends that the petitioner was not granted a hearing prior to the
issuanceofExt.P16.InExt.P16order,whichisdated26.04.2025,itisstatedthatthe
petitionerwasheardonthesameday,whichassertion,accordingtothepetitioner,is
incorrect.Itisemphaticallystatedthatnonoticewasissuedtothepetitionerbetween
22.04.2025and26.04.2025.Itisfurthersubmittedthatanoticewasissuedonlyafter
the decision had already been taken, and that thefinalimpugnedorderwaspassed
without affording the petitioner an opportunity tobeheard.ItissubmittedthatExt.
P19,havingbeenpassedwellbeyondtheperiodasorderedbythisCourt,andwithout
hearing the petitioner, is unsustainable in law.
6. Sri.G.Biju,thelearnedStandingCounselappearingfortheTravancore
Devaswom Board, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner.
He submits that the directions issued in Ext. P15 have been duly complied with, in
letterandspirit.ReferenceismadetoExt.P16,particularlyitemNo.9ofthereferred
documents and its contents, wherein it is recorded thatthepetitionerwasheardon
26.04.2025at11:30a.m.,priortotheissuanceoftheorder.Accordingtothelearned
Standing Counsel, an interim order was passed, as the time granted by this Court,
which was just ten days, was not sufficient to have a detailed hearing. It isfurther
submittedthatafterExt.P16,Ext.P17,showcausenoticewasissuedandthereafter,
Ext. P19orderwaspassed.HewouldthenrefertoExt.P19,anditissubmittedthat
thefactthatthepetitionerhereinwasheardon26.04.2025,wasmadementionofin
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 6 2025:KER:65249
Ext. P19. It isalsomentionedthatpursuanttoExt.P18objectiontotheshowcause
notice, the Vice President, President, and the Secretary had filed separate
representations beforetherespondentBoard,andifthatbethecase,thecontention
that they were not heard cannot be accepted.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the records. As the contentions revolve around the non-compliance of the
directionsissuedbythisCourtandtheviolationoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice,we
are of the view that the matter can be disposed of at the admissionstageitself,as
further delay can be avoided.
8. As stated earlier,intheearlierWritPetition,thisCourtnotedthatthe
petitioner/Committeethemselveshadconcededthatthepowerhasbeenvestedinthe
Commissioner to terminate the committee after a proper enquiry. It was after
considering the said aspect that this Court directed the Commissionertoissuefresh
noticeandtopassorderswithinaperiodoftendays.However,whathastranspiredis
that the fresh suspension order on an interim basis was passed, a copy ofwhichis
produced as Ext. P16, and thereafter Ext. P19 was passed. A reading of Ext. P19
wouldnotrevealthatapersonalhearingwasgrantedtothepetitionerbeforepassing
Ext. P19.
9. WearenotdelvingintothemeritsoftheVigilanceReportatthisstage
because we are only at the stage of considering whether the procedure has been
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 7 2025:KER:65249
strictly followed and whether the principles of natural justice have been complied
with. If the intentoftherespondentswastocomplywiththedirection,noticeought
to have been issued, and thequestionwhetherthecommitteeshouldbeterminated
should have been considered within 10 days. The respondents werenotrequiredto
issueanorderofinterimsuspensionandthenissueafinalorder.Theywereexpected
to afford an opportunity to the petitionertoraisetheircontentionsandthentopass
final orders on the issue.
10. Inthatviewofthematter,weareoftheviewthatExt.P16andP19
warrant interference. Accordingly, Exts.P16andP19andallconsequentproceedings
arequashed.TheCommissionerisdirectedtoissueafreshshowcausenoticetothe
petitioner, enclosing a copy of the Vigilance Report and such other documents on
which reliance is placed, within a period of one week from today, i.e., 26.08.2025.
Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall submit their explanation within a
further period of three days.Thereafter,theCommissionershallaffordthepetitioner
an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders, taking into account all relevant
aspects, within a further period of two weeks.
This Writ Petition is disposed of.
d/-
S
RAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
APM JUDGE
WP(C) No. 32234 of 2025 8 2025:KER:65249
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32234/2025
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 THEAUDITED STATEMENTS OFACCOUNTS
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
xhibit P7
E A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WESTERN GOPURAM
Exhibit P8
A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NORTHERN GOPURAM
Exhibit P9
A
CLOSE SHOT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FLAG IN
QUESTION
xhibit P10
E A COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22/03/2025
Exhibit P11
A
COPY OF 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
xhibit P13
E 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
Exhibit P15
A
COPY OF
THE JUDGMENT IN
W
P(C) 16502/2025
DATED 22.04.2025
Exhibit P16
A
COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2025
Exhibit P17
A
COPY OF THE POST
DECISIONAL SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE DATED 30.04.2025
Exhibit P18
A
COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE SHOW
CAUSE
NOTICE DATED 31.05.2025
Exhibit P19
A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2025
