Kerala High Court
Akshay Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:17052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AKSHAY KRISHNAN
AGED 27 YEARS
AKSHAY NIVAS, THAZHE CHOVVA P.O, NEAR CHIMMINIYAN
KAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670018
BY ADVS.
DEEPAK RAJ
GOUTHAMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE(DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670002
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673006
4 SUDHAKARAN K
SECRETARY, COMMITTEE MEMBER, PARAPOOL KAVU
COMMITTEE, ARIYIL P.O, PATTUVAM, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670143
5 GOPALAN NAMBIAR
PRESIDENT, PARAPOOL KAVU COMMITTEE, ARIYIL P.O,
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:17052
PATTUVAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670143
6 RATHEESH KAROTH VALAPPIL
S/O LEELA, MORAZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670331
7 POOVADAN LAKSHMANAN
S/O LATE KANNAN, NILANKKOL HOUSE, PATTUVAM, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670141
8 SUKUMARAN NILANKOLE
NILANKOLE HOUSE, PATTUVAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670141
9 NARAYANAN A K
AALINTHINKEEZHIL, PO MORAZHA, CHERA, KEEZHARA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670301
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP ; SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:17052
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Parappool Bhagavathi
Temple (Parappool Kavu), Thaliparambu, Kannur District, has
filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
a writ of certiorari [sic: writ of mandamus] commanding the
District Judge, Thalassery to submit a report before this Court
in petition O.M.No.P.C.No.1772/2024 dated 22.02.2024 and to
take stringent action on the said report, as per the dictum laid
down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India
[(2019) 18 SCC 1], without any delay; an order directing the
present Temple Committee of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple
(Parappool Kavu) to hand over all responsibilities of the temple
to the Ooralans (hereditary trustees of the temple), including
the books of accounts and all details of the administration and
permit them to discharge all their duties without any hitch and
hindrance; a declaration that the Parappool Bhagavathi Temple
is a religious institution and direct the respondents to frame a
scheme for the administration of Parappool Kavu under the
leadership of 4 Ooralan families (hereditary trustees of the
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
temple); and direct the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board to conduct the audit of accounts of Parappool
Bhagavathi Temple for the last 13 years.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
petitioner, who is a devotee of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple
(Parappool Kavu), has filed this writ petition due to the
dilapidated condition of the temple and its properties on account
of inaction on the part of respondents 4 and 5, who are presently
the Secretary and President, respectively, of Parappool Kavu
Committee. Respondents 6 to 9 belong to four Ooralan families
of the temple. The property of the temple is comprised in
Re.Sy.Nos.70 and 71 of Pattuvam Village, i.e., 4.02 Acres in
Re.Sy.No.70 and 7.10 Acres in Re.Sy.No.71 of Pattuvam Village.
The temple pond, having an extent of 50 cents, is at Ariyil.
According to the petitioner, the annual income of the temple is
around Rs.10 Lakhs, by way of vazhipadu and donations from
the devotees. Though the temple generates huge income, the
Kavu and its premises are in a dilapidated condition due to the
inaction on the part of Parappool Kavu Committee. The Kavu
building Tharavadu (Valiyaveedu) is not maintained properly by
the Kavu Committee. Moreover, the income and expenditure of
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
the Kavu were not audited for the last 13 years. The Kavu
Committee is not bothered about the difficulties faced by the
devotees, the deficiencies in the management, appropriate
utilisation of the offerings and the protection of the assets of the
Kavu. Moreover, the election to the committee is not being
conducted democratically and the minutes are not maintained
properly. The Kavu Committee is not consulting the four Ooralan
families, namely, Karoth Tharavadu, Arathingal Tharavadu,
Koovodan Tharavadu and Neelankol Tharavadu, in the day-to-
day administration of the temple. Due to the dilapidated
condition of the Kavu, the Ooralans have expressed their
interest in forming a committee to protect the interest of the
Kavu and the devotees. The petitioner caused to issue Ext.P1
lawyer notice dated 23.12.2024 to the President and Secretary
of Parappool Kavu Committee. On receipt of Ext.P1 lawyer
notice, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 reply notice dated
21.01.2025. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated nil
before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board,
Kozhikode, for a declaration that Parappool Bhagavathi Temple
(Parappool Kavu) is a religious institution and the accounts of
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
the temple have to be subjected to audit and also for renovation
of Parappool Kavu and the Tharavadu (Valiyaveedu).
3. On 13.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for
admission, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for
the petitioner sought an adjournment to address arguments on
the maintainability of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
4. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for
consideration, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking
an order to amend the writ petition by incorporating Ground
No.E and to substitute the first relief sought for in this writ
petition as a writ of mandamus commanding the District Judge,
Thalassery to forward a detailed report to this Court in
connection with petition dated 22.02.2024 filed by one Vivek
V.V., which was numbered as O.M.No.P.C.No.1772/2024,
without any delay and take appropriate action on that report as
per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi
v. Union of India [(2019) 18 SCC 1]. A copy of the petition
dated nil submitted by Vivek V.V. is marked as Ext.P4 in I.A.No.1
of 2025. We notice that Ext.P3 representation dated nil made by
the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board is a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P4 petition
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
dated nil made by Vivek V.V. before the District Judge,
Thalassery.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and
also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board
for the 3rd respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner, who is a devotee of Parappool Bhagavathi
Temple (Parappool Kavu), has invoked the writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling
aggrieved by the delay on the part of the District Judge,
Thalassery in forwarding the report before this Court in the
petition dated 22.02.2024 made by one Vivek V.V., which is one
submitted before the District Judge in view of the dictum laid
down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India
[(2019) 18 SCC 1], in which the Apex Court noticed the
directions issued in its earlier order dated 05.07.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018.
7. In Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2018) 7
SCC 789 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - order dated
05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
that the issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative
practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of
hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets
may require consideration with regard to all shrines throughout
India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot
be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is a
need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart
from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue directions for
making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable
or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed
that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge
throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the
District Judge may either himself/herself or assign the
issue/matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction,
examine above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the
High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public
interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial
directions as become necessary, having regard to the individual
fact situation. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 20 of the order dated
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC
667] read thus;
"10. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors,
exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management,
maintenance of hygiene, proper utilization of offerings
and protection of assets may require consideration with
regard to all shrines throughout India, irrespective of
religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed
that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and there
is need to look into this aspect by the Central
Government, apart from State Governments.
11. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a
Court also to issue directions for making a scheme or
making an arrangement for any charitable or religious
institution. Accordingly, we direct that if any devotee
moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India
with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge
may either himself/herself or by assigning the
issue/matter to any other Court under his/her jurisdiction
examine the above aspects and if necessary, send a
report to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High
Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in
accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as
become necessary, having regard to the individual fact
situation.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
20. We may sum up our directions in today's orders, in
addition to the orders dated 08.06.2018, as follows;
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
i) Report of the District Judge dated 26.6.2018 is
accepted in principle and action to be taken by
the temple administration.
ii) District Judge, Puri may send further report, if
any by 31.8.2018, preferably by e-mail.
iii) The State Government may submit report of the
Committee constituted by it on or before
31.8.2018.
iv) The Central Government may constitute its
Committee, as already directed, within two
weeks from today and place its interim report on
record of this Court on or before 31.8.2018.
v) Copy of the Report of the District Judge may be
placed on the websites of the temple
management, Ministry of Culture and website of
the Supreme Court for two weeks.
vi) The directions in the order dated 8.6.2018 may
be complied with by all concerned and non-
compliance thereof may be reported to this
Court for appropriate action if necessary.
vii) The temple management may consider, subject
to regulatory measures, with regard to dress
code, giving of an appropriate declaration or
compliance with other directions, permitting
every visitor irrespective of his faith, to offer
respects and to make offerings to the deity.
viii) We have noted that Hinduism does not eliminate
any other belief and is eternal faith and wisdom
and inspiration of centuries, as noted in earlier
judgments of this Court.
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in
management, maintenance of hygiene,
appropriate utilisation of offerings and
protections of assets with regard to shrines,
irrespective of religion is a matter for
consideration not only for the State Government,
Central Government but also for Courts. Every
District Judge throughout India may examine
such matters himself or through any court under
his jurisdiction and send a report to the High
Court concerned so that such report can be
treated as PIL on the judicial side and such
direction may be issued as may be considered
necessary having regard to individual fact
situation.
x) Learned amicus is at liberty to engage with all
stakeholders and to give suggestions for bringing
about improvements and also to give a report to
this Court. However, this will not stand in the
way of the Committee of the State Government,
Committee of the Central Government or any
District Judge considering matters in terms of
above directions." (underline supplied)
8. In paragraph 11 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018- Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine
SC 667] the Apex Court referred to the provisions under Section
92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with public
charities.
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
9. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals
with public charities. In view of the provisions contained in sub-
section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of
any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of
a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the
court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such
trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an
interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the court,
may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other court
empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the
subject matter of the trust is situated to obtain a decree of any
of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1).
Clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 read thus;
(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) vesting any property in a trustee;
(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a
person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver
possession of any trust property in his possession
to the person entitled to the possession of such
property;
(d) directing accounts and inquiries;
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of
the interest therein shall be allocated to any
particular object of the trust;
(f) authoriszing the whole or any part of the trust
property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
(g) settling a scheme; or
(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of
the case may require.
10. Sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the Code provides
that, save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863
or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which,
immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in
Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-
section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is
therein referred to except in conformity with the provisions of
that sub-section.
11. As per sub-section (3) of Section 92, the court may
alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust
created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature
and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion
thereof to be applied cy press in one or more of the
circumstances enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). Clauses (a) to
(e) of sub-section (3) read thus;
(a) where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
in part,
(i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or
(ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried
out according to the directions given in the
instrument creating the trust or, where there is
no such instrument, according to the spirit of the
trust; or
(b) where the original purposes of the trust provide a
use for a part only of the property available by
virtue of the trust; or
(c) where the property available by virtue of the trust
and other property applicable for similar purposes
can be more effectively used in conjunction with,
and to that end can suitably be made applicable to
any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of
the trust and its applicability to common purposes;
or
(d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part,
were laid down by reference to an area which then
was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such
purposes; or
(e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part,
have, since they were laid down,
(i) been adequately provided for by other means, or
(ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the
community, of
(iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable, or
(iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and
effective method of using the property available
by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
spirit of the trust.
12. In Madappa v. M.N. Mahanthadevaru [AIR 1966
SC 878] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that sub-
section (1) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides
for two classes of cases, namely, (i) where there is a breach of
trust in a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or
religious nature, and (ii) where the direction of the court is
deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. The
reliefs to be sought in a suit under sub-section (1) of Section 92
are indicated in that Section and include removal of any trustee,
the appointment of a new trustee, vesting of any property in a
trustee, directing a removed trustee or person who has ceased
to be a trustee to deliver possession of trust property in his
possession to the person entitled to the possession of such
property, directing accounts and enquiries, declaring what
proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall
be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorisation
of the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold,
mortgaged or exchanged, or settlement of a scheme. The nature
of these reliefs will show that a suit under Section 92 may be
filed when there is a breach of trust or when the administration
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
of the trust generally requires improvement.
13. In Madappa [AIR 1966 SC 878] the Constitution
Bench held that the main purpose of sub-section (1) of Section
92 of Code is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable
or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits
being filed against them. That is why it provides that suits under
that section can only be filed either by the Advocate General or
two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the
*[consent in writing of the Advocate General]. The object is that
before the Advocate General files a suit or gives his consent for
filing a suit, he would satisfy himself that there is a prima facie
case either of breach of trust or of the necessity for obtaining
directions of the Court. [*Substituted as 'leave of the Court' by Act 104 of 1974]
14. In R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu
Charities [(1989) Supp.2 SCC 356] the Apex Court held that
a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a suit
of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the public
trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the
entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for
the vindication of public rights.
15. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. v. State of
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
Kerala [2024 (2) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court, in
which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, noticed
that the directions issued by the Apex Court in clauses (i) to
(viii) and (x) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] are in
respect of the issue of public importance highlighted in that writ
petition relating to the difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri
Jagannath Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation
by the Sevaks of the temple. Before the Apex Court, it was
pointed out that the environment of the surroundings is not
hygienic, as it ought to be, and there are encroachments. There
are deficiencies in the management of the shrine and the rituals
are commercialised. See: Para 1 of the order dated 08.06.2018
in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 602]. It is in
that context that the Apex Court issued a general direction in
clause (ix) of para 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] for
redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees of all shrines
throughout India, irrespective of religion practiced in such
shrines, on account of harassment or exploitation by those in
management, unhygienic surroundings, encroachments,
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
deficiencies in management, etc. The general direction
contained in clause (ix) of para 20 is to the effect that difficulties
faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance
of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protection of
assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter
for consideration not only for the State Government, Central
Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout
India may examine such matters himself or through any court
under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court
concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the
judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be
considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation.
16. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC
1], the Division Bench held that the petition that can be moved
by a devotee in terms of the general direction contained in
clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the aforesaid order dated
05.07.2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] of the Apex Court is
not one invoking the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, since that provision of the Code, which deals
with public charities, can be invoked only in the manner provided
in sub-section (1) of Section 92, to obtain a decree of any of the
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section
92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or
constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or
religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed
necessary for the administration of any such trust. In terms of
the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of
the order dated 05.07.2018 of the Apex Court, which is one
issued for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees on
account of deficiencies in management, maintenance of
hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings or protection of
assets of shrines, a devotee can approach the District Judge
having jurisdiction, with a petition pointing out the difficulties
faced by him on account of any such matters, in which event the
District Judge may examine such matters by himself or through
any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High
Court concerned, for consideration of that report in the judicial
side, for issuing any direction as may be considered necessary,
having regard to individual fact situation.
17. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC
1], on the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed
that in Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
in W.P.(C)No.29277 of 2023, before the District Judge,
Ernakulam, he is requesting the District Judge to conduct an
enquiry and take appropriate action as per the general direction
contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex
Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC
OnLine SC 667], and take back the administration of
Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the 4th respondent
SNDP Sakha No.893 and appoint an appropriate authority to
administer the affairs of that temple. The averments in that writ
petition showed that claiming repossession of the management
of the temple, alleging violation of the provisions under Ext.P1
agreement dated 24.04.1956, the petitioner's father filed
O.S.No.231 of 1981, before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavur, for
cancellation of that agreement, which was dismissed by default
by Ext.P4 judgment dated 06.11.1984. Therefore, the Division
Bench held that the issue in respect of the management of
Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, raised by the petitioner
in Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 filed before the District
Judge, Ernakulam, is beyond the scope of the general direction
contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex
Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018. Similarly, in
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made by the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.29370 of 2023, namely, Pariyarathappan Kshethra
Chaithanyarjjava Paripalana Sabha, before the District Judge,
Thalaserry, the petitioner is requesting the District Judge to
conduct an enquiry into the alleged encroachment of the
property of the minor deity of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy
Temple, having an extent of 5.08 Ares in Kolari Village, covered
by Ext.P1 settlement register. According to the petitioner,
respondents 6 to 9 or their predecessors are not Ooralans of
Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple. However, the name of
the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9 are recorded as owners
of that property, which has been transferred in their name, in
the year 1969, by the proceedings initiated under the provisions
of Madras Land Reforms Act. The averments in the writ petition
showed that in O.S.No.450 of 1999 filed by the predecessors of
respondents 6 to 9, claiming to be the Ooralans of the temple,
seeking mandatory injunction directing the 5th respondent Sree
Subrahmanya Kshethra Seva Samithi to handover them the
management, administration and possession of the petition
schedule property, i.e., the temple and its pond, the Munsiff
Court, Koothuparamba granted a decree in their favour, as
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
evident from Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.09.2009, which was
confirmed by the Sub Court, Thalassery in Ext.P4 judgment
dated 20.10.2016 in A.S.No.148 of 2009, which was under
challenge in RSA No.678 of 2017 and the said RSA was
dismissed as not pressed vide judgment dated 23.02.2022. The
issue raised in Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made before
the District Judge, Kannur is beyond the scope of the general
direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order
of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018.
Therefore, the Division Bench held that the relief sought for in
both the writ petitions seeking an order directing the concerned
District Judge to consider the petition made for conducting
enquiry into the affairs of the respective temples, which is
beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause
(ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated
05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018, is not legally
maintainable.
18. In Pramesh V. v. State of Kerala and others
[2023:KER:49610] - judgment dated 23.05.2023 in W.P.(C)
No.7033 of 2022 - a decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with
a writ petition, in which the grievance of the petitioner was that
respondents 5 and 6 therein and others have encroached upon
the property of Kottayil Bhagavathy Temple having an extent of
2.35 Acres in Sy.No. 163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village and
demolished the temple situated therein, in spite of the complaint
filed by the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the
order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India
[2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. The petitioner sought for a writ
of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State of Kerala
and the 2nd respondent District Collector, Palakkad to protect the
land of the minor deity of Bhagavathy Temple having an extent
of 2.35 Acres in Sy.No.163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village and
maintain the same by evicting all the encroachers, including
respondents 5 and 6, and take appropriate steps to secure the
said property by protecting it from encroachers and to take
adequate steps to ensure that the said property is exclusively
used for temple purposes alone, in the light of the order of the
Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667];
and an order directing the District Judge, Palakkad to consider
Ext.P9 petition dated 24.02.2022, in terms of the directions
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
contained in the said order of the Apex Court.
19. In Pramesh V. [2023:KER:49610] the Division
Bench held that when the dispute relating to the property of
Kottayil Bhagavathi Temple is pending before the competent civil
court, i.e., the Munsiff Court, Mannarkkad, in O.S.No.94 of 2017
filed by one Krishnan, a devotee of the said temple, in which the
alleged encroachers are arrayed as the defendants, the
petitioner, who is another devotee of the said temple, cannot
submit a petition like Ext.P9 before the 3rd respondent District
Judge, Palakkad, relying on the order of the Apex Court in
Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667], to conduct an
enquiry into the alleged encroachment of the property of the
minor deity by the defendants in that suit, (respondents 5 and
6 in the writ petition) and file a report before this Court, during
the pendency of that suit. For the aforesaid reason, the Division
Bench dismissed W.P.(C)No.7033 of 2022 as not maintainable,
without expressing anything on the rival contentions of the
parties.
20. In Ravi Kidavu and another v. State of Kerala
and others [2024:KER:62496] - judgment dated 14.08.2024
in W.P.(C)No.4748 of 2024 - another decision relied on by the
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
learned counsel for the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court
in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was
dealing with a writ petition filed by a senior member of Kavutheri
Chamboli Tharavadu, which owned Naduvathur Shiva Temple,
which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom
Board, along with a devotee of that temple, seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P5 report dated 31.07.2023 of the District
Judge, Kozhikode, in O.P.No.240 of 2022, which is one filed by
a devotee of that temple, in the light of the directions contained
in the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC
OnLine SC 667]; a declaration that in view of the well settled
position in law that the interest of the minor deity should be
protected by preventing from encroaching or losing the
Devaswom properties, the finding of the District Judge,
Kozhikode in Ext.P5 report is not correct, which requires re-
adjudication by way of ordering further enquiry in the matter;
and a writ of mandamus commanding the District Judge,
Kozhikode to file fresh and detailed report in the matter, after
conducting fresh enquiry de novo in detail in the light of the
decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC
OnLine SC 667] and the decision of this Court in Ganapathi
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1].
21. In Ravi Kidavu [2024:KER:62496] the Division
Bench noticed that after conducting an enquiry in terms of the
directions contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order
of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC
667], the District Judge, Kozhikode forwarded Ext.P5 report
dated 31.07.2023 in O.P.No.240 of 2022, based on which a writ
petition has already been registered suo motu, which is now
pending before this Court as W.P.(C)No.38746 of 2023. The
question as to whether Ext.P5 report of the District Judge,
Kozhikode has to be accepted or any action has to be taken in
terms of the findings/observations in that report are matters
which require consideration in that writ petition. Therefore, the
Division Bench held that, a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable against Ext.P5 report
dated 31.07.2023 of the District Judge, Kozhikode. In case any
person is having grievance in respect of the findings or
observations contained in such a report of the District Judge, it
is for them to get themselves impleaded as respondents in the
writ petition registered suo motu and file an affidavit raising
appropriate legal and factual contentions. Therefore, the
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground of
maintainability; however, without prejudice to the right of the
petitioners to get themselves impleaded as additional
respondents in W.P.(C)No.38746 of 2023 and file an affidavit
raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.
22. In the instant case, the averments in the writ petition
and that contained in Ext.P3 representation dated nil made by
the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board, Kozhikode, which is a verbatim reproduction
of Ext.P4 petition dated nil made by one Vivek V.V. before the
District Judge, Thalassery, would show that there is a dispute
between Parappool Kavu Committee, in which respondents 4
and 5 herein are its Secretary and President, respectively, and
the members of the Ooralan families of Parappool Bhagavathi
Temple (Parappool Kavu). In the writ petition, it is stated that
respondents 6 to 9 belong to four Ooralan families of the temple
and that Parappool Kavu Committee is not consulting the
Ooralan families in the day-to-day administration of the temple.
Further, election to Parappool Kavu Committee is not being
conducted democratically and the minutes are not maintained
properly. The income and expenditure of the Kavu are not
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
audited properly. Due to the dilapidated condition of Parappool
Kavu, the Ooralans have expressed their interest in forming a
committee to protect the interest of the Kavu and the devotees.
23. In Ext.P2 reply notice to Ext.P1 lawyer notice, it is
stated that there are only three Ooralan families for Parappool
Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu). The members from the
Ooralan families are in Parappool Kavu Committee. The said
committee consults with the members of the Ooralan families in
the affairs relating to the temple and the members of the
Ooralan families participate in all rituals and ceremonies in the
temple. The minutes and accounts are maintained properly, and
the accounts are passed every year in the general body
convened after the Karthika festival in Vrishchikam. The election
to the committee is also being conducted properly.
24. In Ext.P2 reply notice, it is pointed out that with the
very same allegations contained in Ext.P1 lawyer notice dated
23.12.2024, one Nisanth K.K. submitted a petition before the
Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, with a request
for the assumption of direct administration of Parappool
Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu) by the Malabar Devaswom
Board. In the said petition, the Secretary and President of
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
Parappool Kavu Committee are arrayed as opposite parties. In
addition to that, with the very same allegations contained in
Ext.P1 lawyer notice, one Vivek V.V. has also filed a petition
before the District Judge, Thalassery for auditing the accounts
of Parappool Kavu and to renovate Parappool Kavu and the
Tharavadu (Valiyaveedu). Since no orders could be obtained in
those petitions, the petitioner caused Ext.P1 lawyer notice
through his lawyer, which also contains the very same
allegations.
25. As held by this Court in Ganapathi Namboothiri
N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1], the petition that can be moved by a
devotee in terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix)
of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018
in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine
SC 667] - is not one invoking the provisions under Section 92
of the Code of Civil Procedure, since that provision of the Code,
which deals with public charities, can be invoked only in the
manner provided in sub-section (1) of Section 92, to obtain a
decree of any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-
section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of
any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the
court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such
trust.
26. As held by this Court in Ganapathi Namboothiri
N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1], in terms of the general direction
contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the Apex Court dated
05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018
SCC OnLine SC 667] - which is one issued for redressal of the
difficulties faced by the devotees on account of deficiencies in
management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of
offerings or protection of assets of shrines, a devotee can
approach the District Judge having jurisdiction, with a petition
pointing out the difficulties faced by him on account of any such
matters, in which event the District Judge may examine such
matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction
and send a report to the High Court concerned, for consideration
of that report in the judicial side, for issuing any direction as
may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact
situation.
27. Therefore, the issue raised in Ext.P3 representation
dated nil made by the petitioner before the Deputy
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is a verbatim
reproduction of Ext.P4 petition dated nil made by one Vivek V.V.
before the District Judge, Thalassery relating to the dispute
between Parappool Kavu Committee, in which respondents 4
and 5 herein are its Secretary and President, respectively, and
the members of the Ooralan families of Parappool Bhagavathi
Temple (Parappool Kavu), is beyond the scope of the general
direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order
of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 -
Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667].
28. The question as to whether Parappool Bhagavathi
Temple (Parappool Kavu), Thaliparambu is a 'religious
institution', as defined in clause (15) of Section 6 of the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, has to
be decided by invoking the statutory remedy provided under
clause (a) of Section 57 of the said Act, before the Deputy
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, and the decision of
the Deputy Commissioner on the said dispute shall be subject
to the right of suit or appeal provided under Sections 61 and 62
of the said Act. Similarly, the question as to whether a scheme
has to be framed for proper administration of a temple, which is
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of Section 6 of
the Act has to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board, in a proceedings initiated under Section 58.
The question as to whether a temple is a 'religious institution'
as defined in clause (15) of Section 6 of the said Act or whether
a scheme has to be framed for proper administration of a
temple, which is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15)
of Section 6, is beyond the scope of the general direction
contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex
Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini
Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. Such reliefs cannot also
be sought for in a writ petition filed before this Court, invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any
of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition
fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
2025:KER:17052
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5881/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
23.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
21.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE THROUGH THEIR
LEGAL CONSULTANT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BY MR VIVEK V V BEFORE THE
HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, KANNUR
