Kerala High Court
Nandakumar vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 6 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.P.(C)No.237 of 2025
2025:KER:9637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.237 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NANDAKUMAR
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR MOOLAYIL HOUSE,
PALLATHERI PO PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.K.MOHANAKANNAN
ADARSH MOHAN K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSEFED COMPLEX
ERANJIPALAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003
2 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX
ERANJIPALAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX
ERANJIPALAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER KENATHUPARAMBU KUNATHURMEDU PALAKKAD
2
W.P.(C)No.237 of 2025
2025:KER:9637
DIVISION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
5 THE AREA COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PALAKKAD DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD, PIN - 678013
6 SREE PARUKKANCHERY BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PALLATHERI PO,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
7 MANIKANTAN
MANAGER, SREE PARUKKANCHERY BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE,
PALLATHERI PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
8 THE CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE PARUKKANCHERY BHAGAVATHI
TEMPLE, PALLATHERI PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
9 MULLATH SEETHALAKSHMI AMMA
SITHARA HOUSE NO.61, A R NAIR COLONY,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
10 SANKUNNI
RESIDING AT SARALAM SASTHANAGAR T COLONY
AKATHETHARA PALAKKAD HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE
PARUKKANCHERY BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, PALLATHERI PO,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
11 KUNJUMALU AMMA @ THANKOM AMMA
MUTTANPARAMBATH HOUSE PALLTHERI PALAKKAD
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE PARUKKANCHERY BHAGAVATHI
TEMPLE, PALLATHERI PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
BINOY VASUDEVAN
3
W.P.(C)No.237 of 2025
2025:KER:9637
SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998)
MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013)
MEERA P.(K/000191/2019)
SMT. RANJANIE R, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P.(C)No.237 of 2025
2025:KER:9637
"CR"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Parukkanchery
Bhagavathi Temple, Pallathery, Palakkad District, which is a
controlled institution under the 1st respondent Malabar
Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board to conduct a site inspection at Sree
Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple in order to find out whether
there is any requirement or necessity for demolishing the temple
structures for reconstructing the same; a writ of mandamus
commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 complaint
dated 30.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner; a writ of
mandamus restraining respondents 7 to 11 from proceeding with
the demolition of the temple structures to effect reconstruction;
and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to
ensure that public money is not collected by respondents 7 to 11
under the guise of reconstruction of the temple structures,
2025:KER:9637
st
without sanction from the 1 respondent Malabar Devaswom
Board.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Sree
Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple is managed by a Trustee
Board consisting of five hereditary trustees. The surviving
hereditary trustees are arrayed as respondents 9 to 11. The 7th
respondent is the Manager of the temple and the 8 th respondent
is the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees. In the writ petition,
it is alleged that though the temple structures do not require any
modifications or alterations, respondents 7 to 11 have decided to
demolish and reconstruct the same, without any sanction from
the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board or
the 5th respondent Area Committee, Palakkad Division.
Respondents 7 and 8 have published Ext.P1 notice in connection
with Lakshadeepam scheduled on 15.12.2024, in which
donations are solicited from the devotees for the renovation of
temple structures. In the 'Note' in Ext.P1, it is stated that the
Devaprasnam stressed the urgency of immediate renovation of
the temple structures. As any delay in the renovation will lead to
grave mishaps in the village, as well as to the devotees, the
wholehearted support extended by the devotees is solicited. The
2025:KER:9637
bank account details with the mobile number are provided in
Ext.P1 notice. After the publication of Ext.P1 notice, the
petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 30.12.2024 before
the 2nd respondent Commissioner. The document marked as
Ext.P3 is a few photographs of the temple structures, in order to
show that it requires no renovation or reconstruction. In the writ
petition, it is pointed out that any construction or reconstruction
of temple structures can be made under the provisions of Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Rules, 1951, framed
under Section 100(2)(q), (r) and (s) of the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
3. On 07.01.2025, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
Board took notice for respondents 1 to 5. Urgent notice by speed
post was ordered to respondents 6 and 7, returnable within three
weeks. Having considered the materials on record and also the
submissions made at the Bar, this Court granted an interim order
dated 07.01.2025, directing the respondents not to demolish or
reconstruct Sree Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple in Palakkad
District, for a period of one month. The learned Standing Counsel
2025:KER:9637
for Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to file a counter
affidavit within three weeks.
4. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit
dated 25.01.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ
petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(e) documents. In
the counter affidavit sworn to by the 7th respondent, who is the
Manager of the temple, it is stated that he is holding charge as
Manager/Executive Officer of eight temples which are controlled
institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Since there is
seepage/leakage in the Sreekovil of Sree Parukkanchery
Bhagavathi Temple and also in the Thidappally and
Chuttambalam and there is accumulation of Abhisheka Jalam and
Dravyam in the Sreekovil, the Tantri of the temple suggested in
Ext.R6(a) letter dated 19.08.2023 to conduct Ashtamangalya
Prasnam, which was conducted on 25.01.2024 and 26.01.2024
in the presence of the devotees, after due publication of notice.
The astrologers suggested renovation and various other Parihara
Karmas. Parihara Karmas preceding the renovation work were
done under the supervision of the Tantri in August and December
2024. The renovation work is proposed to be carried out under
the supervision of a Vasthu Expert. The estimate for the work is
2025:KER:9637
prepared by a retired Assistant Engineer (PWD). With the
permission of the Board of Trustees, the 7th respondent Manager
submitted the estimate and plan for the renovation work before
the 2nd respondent Commissioner for approval. The approval is
awaited. In the counter affidavit it is stated that no funds have
been collected for the renovation work and the work has also not
been started. On getting permission from the 2nd respondent
Commissioner, a separate account would be opened and the
work would be executed as per the approval granted by the
Commissioner.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7,
it is stated that a renovation committee has been functioning at
Sree Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple, from the year 2011
onwards, without approval from the Malabar Devaswom Board,
ostensibly for constructing an Oottupura. As per Ext.R6(b) audit
report of the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department,
Malabar Devaswom Board Audit, for the period 1997-2017, an
amount of Rs.1,53,000/- has to be recovered from the
Devaswom fund, towards the income from Oottupura. As per
Ext.R6(c) audit report for the period 2018-20, the renovation
committee is required to remit a sum of Rs.8,43,546.97 to the
2025:KER:9637
Devaswom fund. In the counter affidavit, it is alleged that the
petitioner is a prominent member of the aforesaid renovation
committee. He was an executive committee member and was
also the Secretary of the festival committee for the last more
than 20 years. The accounts of the festival committee submitted
before the 7th respondent Manager were incomplete, which has
already been forwarded to the State Audit Department and the
audit report is awaited. The document marked as Ext.R6(b) is a
lawyer notice caused to be issued by the 7th respondent Manager
on 08.01.2025 to recover the Devaswom fund, to which the
Secretary of the renovation committee submitted Ext.R6(e) reply
dated 14.01.2025.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for
respondents 1 to 5, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7
and also the learned counsel for respondents 8 to 10.
7. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951 is enacted to provide for the better
administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras. The Act
received the assent of the President on 27.08.1951. By the
2025:KER:9637
Kerala Adoption of Laws Order, 1956 the provisions under the
said Act have been made applicable to Hindu Religious and
Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the Malabar District.
8. Clause (11) of Section 6 of the Act defines the term
'person having interest'. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (11) of
Section 6, in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to
attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of
worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or
is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of
gifts thereat shall fall under the definition of 'person having
interest'.
9. Clause (9) of Section 6 of the Act defines the term
'hereditary trustee' to mean the trustee of a religious institution
succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is
regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder,
so long as such scheme of succession is in force. Clause (19) of
Section 6 defines the term 'trustee' to mean any person or body
by whatever designation known in whom or in which the
administration of a religious institution is vested, and includes
any person or body who or which is liable as if such person or
body were a trustee.
2025:KER:9637
10. The provisions contained in Chapter II of the Act were
substituted by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 31 of 2008), which
deals with the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officers. Section
7 of the Act deals with the Constitution of the Malabar
Devaswom Board. As per the provisions under Section 7M, the
duties and functions of the Board include a duty to ensure proper
maintenance and upliftment of Hindu religious institutions and to
establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the
devotees.
11. In view of the provisions under Section 8 of the Act,
all the powers and duties under this Act, in respect of various
religious institutions of the Malabar area, that have been
exercised or performed by the Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Area Committees
before the commencement of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008 shall vest in the
Board, on its constitution. As per Section 8A of the Act, subject
to supervision and control of the Board, and other provisions of
this Act, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant
Commissioners and Area Committees exercising any power or
2025:KER:9637
performing any duty under this Act, before the commencement
of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Amendment) Act, 2008, shall continue to exercise such powers
and perform such duties, as officers of the Board, as if those
powers are delegated to them by the Board.
12. As per Section 22 of the Act, no person may succeed
or be appointed to, or hold, the office of the trustee of a religious
institution, (a) unless he professes the Hindu religion; and (b)
except in the case of a hereditary trustee, unless he is not less
than twenty-five and not more than seventy years of age. As per
Section 23 of the Act, the trustee of a religious institution shall
be bound to obey all lawful orders issued under the provisions of
this Act by the Government, Board, the Commissioner, the
Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant
Commissioner.
13. Section 24 of the Act deals with the care required of
the trustee and his powers. As per sub-section (1) of Section 24,
subject to the provisions of the Madras Temple Entry
Authorisation Act, 1947, the trustee of every religious institution
is bound to administer its affairs and to apply its funds and
properties in accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage of
2025:KER:9637
the institution and all lawful directions which a competent
authority may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man
of ordinary prudence would deal with such affairs, funds and
properties if they were his own. As per sub-section (2) of Section
24, a trustee shall, subject to the provisions of the Act be
entitled to exercise all powers incidental to the provident and
beneficial administration of the religious institution and to do all
things necessary for the due performance of the duties imposed
on him.
14. As per sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, a
trustee shall not be entitled to spend the funds of the religious
institution for meeting any costs, charges or expenses incurred
by him in any suit, appeal or application or other proceeding for,
or incidental to, his removal from office or the taking of any
disciplinary action against him. As per the proviso to sub-section
(3) of Section 24, the trustee may reimburse himself in respect
of such costs, charges or expenses if he is specifically permitted
to do so by an order passed under Section 88.
15. Section 45 of the Act deals with the power to
suspend, remove or dismiss trustees. As per sub-section (1) of
Section 45, the Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious
2025:KER:9637
institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and
the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution,
may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-
hereditary trustee or trustees thereof (a) for persistent default in
the submission of budgets, accounts, reports or returns, or; (b)
for wilful disobedience of any lawful order issued under the
provisions of the Act by the State Government, the
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or
the Assistant Commissioner; or (c) for any malfeasance,
misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the
trust; or (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing
with, the properties of the institution; or (e) for unsoundness of
mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits
him for discharging the functions of the trustee.
16. As per sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Act, when
it is proposed to take action under sub-section (1), the
Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,
shall frame charges against the trustee concerned and give him
an opportunity of meeting such charges, of testing the evidence
in his favour; and the order of suspension, removal or dismissal
shall state the charges framed against the trustee, his
2025:KER:9637
explanation and the finding on each charge with the reasons
therefor.
17. In Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom
Board and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] a Division Bench of
this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a
party held that in view of the provisions contained in Chapter II
of the Act of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951, as amended by the Amendment Act of
2008, the Malabar Devaswom Board and the authorities of the
Board, including the Commissioner, have the duty and obligation
to act in trust. In the said decision, this Court held further that in
view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act, the
trustee of every religious institution is bound to administer its
affairs and to apply its funds and properties in accordance with
the terms of the trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful
directions which a competent authority may issue in respect
thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would
deal with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his own.
18. Clauses (r), (s) and (t) of sub-section (2) of Section
100 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1951, deal with the power to make Rules with reference to
2025:KER:9637
the preservation, maintenance, management and improvement
of the properties and buildings of religious institutions; the
inspection and supervision of the properties and buildings of
religious institutions, the reports to be submitted by persons
making such inspection and supervision and the fees leviable for
such inspection, supervision and report; and the preservation of
the images in temples. As per clause (1) of Rule 1 of the Rules
made under Section 100(2)(r), (s) and (t) of the Act, 'building
work' includes work relating to the construction, repair,
alteration, conservation or renovation of a building and other
works of construction belonging to a religious institution. As per
clause (2) of Rule 1, 'building' includes the premises of a
religious institution and any building or structure or work relating
to agriculture or irrigation, owned by, or in the possession of, a
religious institution. As per clause (3) of Rule 1, 'appropriate
authority' means the Area Committee in relation to religious
institutions coming within the jurisdiction of an Area Committee
and the Commissioner in relation to other institutions.
19. As per Rule 2 of the Rules, the trustee of a religious
institution shall submit to the appropriate authority annually, six
months before the end of each fasli [a period of twelve months
2025:KER:9637
st
commencing from the 1 day of July every year], a report on the
building works which it is desirable or necessary to carry out
during the succeeding fasli, setting out the need for, and the
details of, the works and giving a rough estimate of the
expenditure involved and of the manner in which the expenditure
on the works is proposed to be met. As per Rule 3, proposals in
regard to building works that are not purely secular shall be
framed with due regard to the principles and practice of
traditional architecture and to the need for preserving
architecture and sculptural and archeological features.
20. As per Rule 4 of the Rules, whenever a worshipper or
other person offers to donate the cost of, or execute any building
works, the trustee shall obtain from him details of his proposals
and, if he proposes to undertake the works himself, a statement
showing the manner in which the necessary finances for the
execution of the works will be made available and the time
within which the construction will be completed and forward the
details or statement, as the case may be, to the appropriate
authority with his remarks whether the said offer may be
accepted and if so, on what conditions.
2025:KER:9637
21. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, on the
appropriate authority approving a proposal of the trustee to
execute the building works from the funds of the institution or
with a donation made by a worshipper or other person, the
trustee shall prepare detailed estimates for the works proposed,
make provision in the budget for the proposed expenditure and
submit the estimate along with plans to the appropriate
authority. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, when the appropriate
authority approves the trustee's proposal to allow a worshipper
or other person to execute any building works and settles the
conditions on which such permission may be granted, the trustee
shall obtain from such worshipper or other person detailed plans
and estimates for the works proposed and submit them to the
appropriate authority with his remarks.
22. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, the appropriate authority
may sanction the plans and estimates submitted under sub-rule
(1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 with such modifications and subject
to such conditions as it may deem fit and where the cost of the
construction to be met from the funds of the institution,
sanction, the necessary expenditure. As per Rule 7, the
appropriate authority may decide whether a construction is to be
2025:KER:9637
made departmentally or through contractors. Where execution
through contractors is deemed fit the contract shall be given on
the open tender system.
23. As per Rule 8 of the Rules, in all cases in which a
building work is undertaken, such work shall be subject to
supervision, control and inspection as and when the appropriate
authority deems fit and the said authority may, at any stage of
the execution, order such check measurement and control as
may be deemed essential, before the work is further proceeded
with or further expenditure incurred. As per the mandate of Rule
9, a trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work
without the previous sanction of the appropriate authority,
provided that minor repairs, which cannot, owing to urgency, be
postponed, may be executed in anticipation of sanction applied
for.
24. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, a trustee shall not,
except with the appropriate authority's express previous
sanction, exceed the expenditure sanctioned or deviate from the
plan and estimate approved by the said authority. As per Rule
11, a trustee shall not permit any worshipper or other person to
commence the execution of any building work or deviate from
2025:KER:9637
the plan approved by the appropriate authority without the
previous permission of the said authority. As per Rule 12, a
trustee shall not repair, alter, replace, sell, gift or destroy an
antiquities or other objects of interest, like jewels, vahanams or
other movables, sculptures, carvings, inscriptions or paintings
without the express previous permission of the Commissioner
and such permission shall be accorded only on obtaining
competent advice thereon.
25. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule
13 of the Rules, the appropriate authority should secure
technical advice and assistance in respect of all building works
proposed to be undertaken by a trustee from out of the funds of
the religious institution or proposed by a trustee to be allowed to
be executed by a worshipper, at an estimated cost of
Rs.10,000/- and above and in other cases when it is of opinion
that there is need such advice and assistance as to the necessity
of any building works or the nature of the building works or for
the preparation or scrutiny of plans and estimates, having due
regard to the nature and importance and estimated cost of the
building works.
2025:KER:9637
26. As per Rule 17 of the Rules, the trustee shall maintain
such books, registers, accounts, vouchers and records in respect
of building works and shall make such reports as the
Commissioner may require. As per Rule 18, it shall be the duty
of the trustee to ensure that utmost care is taken of the
architectural, sculptural and archaeological features of every
structure in the temple or on its lands in his charge. As per Rule
22, the Commissioner may exclude any class of building works
from the operation of these rules on the ground that the cost of
the works is too small to require such application.
27. The Rules made under Section 100(2)(r), (s) and (t)
of the Act cover every minute aspect of the work relating to the
construction, repair, alteration, conservation or renovation of a
building and other works of construction belonging to a religious
institution. In view of the prohibition contained in Rule 9, a
trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work
without the previous sanction of the appropriate authority,
provided that minor repairs, which cannot, owing to urgency, be
postponed, may be executed in anticipation of sanction applied
for. As per the mandate of Rule 18, it shall be the duty of the
trustee to ensure that utmost care is taken of the architectural,
2025:KER:9637
sculptural and archaeological features of every structure in the
temple or on its lands in his charge. In view of the provisions
contained in sub-section (1) Section 24 of the Act, the trustee of
every religious institution is bound to administer its affairs and to
apply its funds and properties in accordance with the terms of
the trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful directions
which a competent authority may issue in respect thereof and as
carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such
affairs, funds and properties if they were his own. Any action of
the trustee or the board of trustees of a religious institution, in
relation to a 'building work' as defined under clause (1) of Rule 1
of the Rules under Section 100(2)(r), (s) and (t) of the Act,
openly flouting the provisions under the said Rules, would enable
the Deputy Commissioner, in the case of any religious institution
over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the
Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, to
exercise the powers under Section 45 of the Act, in accordance
with law, to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees, for any
malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in
respect of the trust, as provided under clause (c) of sub-section
(1) of Section 45, or for any misappropriation of, or improper
2025:KER:9637
dealing with, the properties of the institution, as provided under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 45, depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
28. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for respondents 6 and 7 would point out the specific stand taken
in the counter affidavit dated 25.01.2025 filed by the said
respondent, wherein it is stated that no funds have been
collected for the renovation work and the work has also not been
started. The estimate and plan for the renovation work are
pending approval before the 2nd respondent Commissioner. Upon
getting the approval, a separate account would be opened, and
the renovation work would be executed as per the said approval.
29. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would point out that, even before getting approval
from the 2nd respondent Commissioner for the proposal to
renovate the temple structures, respondents 6 and 7 published
Ext.P1 notice in connection with Lakshadeepam scheduled on
15.12.2024, in which donations are solicited from the devotees
for the renovation of temple structures. The bank account details
with the mobile number are provided in Ext.P1 notice. The
learned counsel would also submit that, as evident from Ext.P3
2025:KER:9637
photographs, the temple structures do not require renovation or
reconstruction.
30. We do not propose to consider the rival contentions
on the above aspects in this writ petition since the approval for
the proposal made by respondents 6 and 7 to reconstruct the
temple structures is now pending consideration before the 2nd
respondent Commissioner, who is the appropriate authority
under clause (3) of Rule 1 of the Rules, in relation to Sree
Parukkanchery Bhagavathi Temple, Pallathery.
31. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
Board would submit that the 2nd respondent Commissioner shall
consider the proposal made by respondents 6 and 7 to
reconstruct the temple structures of Sree Parukkanchery
Bhagavathi Temple, Pallathery, and pass appropriate orders,
within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
32. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
by directing the 2nd respondent Commissioner to take an
appropriate decision on the proposal made by respondents 6 and
7 to reconstruct the temple structures of Sree Parukkanchery
Bhagavathi Temple, Pallathery, and pass appropriate orders,
strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the statutory
2025:KER:9637
provisions referred to hereinbefore, with notice to respondents 7
to 11 and also to the petitioner, and after affording them an
opportunity of personal hearing. A decision in this regard shall be
taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. Till such time, the interim order granted by this Court
on 07.01.2025, shall continue to be in force.
From the pleadings and materials on record, we notice that
there are certain issues regarding the audit of the accounts of
the festival committee in which the petitioner is the Secretary
and also that of the renovation committee. Therefore, it is for the
2nd respondent Commissioner to look into those aspects, with
notice to the affected parties, and take an appropriate decision
within the aforesaid period.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV/
2025:KER:9637
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 237/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL THE
TEMPLE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30- 12-
2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE TEMPLE
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF
KUMBHABHISHEKAM
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ELAPULLY
BRANCH
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXT.R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE TANTRI,
DATED 19-08-2023
EXT.R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE
LOCAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DATED
14-1-2019
EXT.R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE
LOCAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DATED
23-04-2022
2025:KER:9637
EXT.R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED ON
BEHALF OF THE TEMPLE, DATED 8-1-2025
EXT.R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 14-
1-2025
