Kerala High Court
Vijayan T @ Thankaraj vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 March, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025
2025:KER:26879
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 MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947
W.P.(C) NO.12765 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VIJAYAN T. @ THANKARAJ
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT VIJAY BHAVAN, KATTUKATHALI,
VELLAYANI, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
BY ADVS.
A.S.SANGEETHA
KANNAN N.
KEVIN RENJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2 THE COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,
NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NEYYATTINKARA GROUP,
NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVAVATHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
4 SUB GROUP OFFICER
VELLAYANI DEVASWOM, VELLAYANI, NEMOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. G. BIJU, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025
2025:KER:26879
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Major Vellayani Devi
Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1 st
respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a
writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Assistant
Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyatinkara Group and the 4th
respondent Sub Group Officer of Vellayani Devaswom to give him
an opportunity for making Pachappanthal and also allow him to
do the traditional activities in which he was involved in the said
temple, such as preparing and carrying 'Theevetti', etc. The
petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding
the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner,
Neyyatinkara Group and the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer of
Vellayani Devaswom to consider his representations, i.e.,
Exts.P2 and P3 dated 03.02.2025 and 17.03.2025, made before
respondents 3 and 4 and grant permission for making
Pachappanthal.
2. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner
submitted representation before the 4th respondent Sub Group
Officer, Vellayani Devaswom for permitting him to make
2025:KER:26879
Pachappanthal for Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam of 1200ME
(2025), from 26.03.2025 to 01.04.2025, based on Ext.P1 notice,
since he is experienced in making Pachappanthal and
Pattuvirikkal for the last more than 15 years, and his grandfather
Govindan Asan also used to make Pachapanthal in the past. The
4th respondent Sub Group Officer verbally gave an assurance and
believing the same, the petitioner brought thatched coconut
leaves and other materials for making Pachapanthal. However,
on 17.03.2025, the Sub Group Officer informed the petitioner
that another person had been considered for making
Pachappanthal.
3. On 27.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for
admission, it was ordered to be listed today for consideration.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for
respondents 1 to 4.
5. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,
1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the
administration, supervision and control of incorporated and
unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious
Endowments and Funds. As per the provisions under Section 3
of the Act, the administration of incorporated and
2025:KER:26879
unincorporated Devaswoms shall vest in the Travancore
Devaswom Board. As per Section 15A of the Act, it shall be the
duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely,
(i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies
according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions
are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the
administrative officials and employees and also the employees
connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to
ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious
institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the
temples for the devotees. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject
to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the
Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the
Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as
heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and
ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its
usage.
6. Section 31A of the Act deals with the formation of the
Temple Advisory Committees. As per subsection (1) of Section
31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name 'Temple
Advisory Committee' (name of the temple) may be constituted
in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-
2025:KER:26879
section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee
constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the
Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of
an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such
manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board,
not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of
sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore
Devaswom Board framed the Rules for the formation of Temple
Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of
the Board, with has been approved by this Court vide order
dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No.153 of 2009.
7. Clause (2) of the Rules deals with objectives of the
Temple Advisory Committees. As per Clause (2) of the Rules,
one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to
formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the
Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with
the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect
donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the
temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the
Department.
8. Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership.
Clause (3) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the
2025:KER:26879
membership in 'registered mandalam' is mainly for the devotees
who are residing within a distance of 5kms from the temple, who
are regular worshipers and had contributed considerably for the
betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to
(iv) of Clause (3) of the Rules deal with class of persons who are
entitled to get membership.
9. In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory
Committee and another v. State of Kerala and others
[2023 (2) KHC 290], this Court held that, in view of the
provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see
that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the
practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are
performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper
facilities in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple for the devotees.
Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made
thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of
Vellayani Devaswom and arrange for the conduct of the daily
worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani
Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage. The Temple
Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the
Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who
2025:KER:26879
fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the
Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is
duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its
officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and
festivals according to the usage.
10. In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory
Committee [2023 (2) KHC 290], a decision rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K.
Narendran, J.] was a party held that, according to Oxford
Dictionary, 'worshipper' is a person who shows reverence and
adoration for a deity. Right to worship is a civil right, of course in
an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition
in each temple. A worshipper or a devotee has no legal right to
insist that saffron/orange coloured decorative materials alone
are used for festivals in a temple under the management of the
Travancore Devaswom Board. Similarly, the District
Administration or the Police cannot insist that only 'politically
neutral' coloured decorative materials are used for temple
festivals. Politics has no role to play in the conduct of daily
worship and ceremonies and festivals in temples. The role of a
Temple Advisory Committee in a temple under the management
of the Travancore Devaswom Board is to render necessary
2025:KER:26879
assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth
functioning of the temple activities and the conduct of festivals
according to the usage of that temple.
11. In Rajalakshmi v. State of Kerala and others
[2023 (3) KHC 492], a decision rendered by a Division Bench
of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was
a party, the Court was dealing with a case in which the
petitioner, who is the ward member of Ward No.15 of
Kuzhithalachal, Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat in Vellayani, filed the
writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated
24.02.2023 of the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore
Devaswom Board, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the
Travancore Devaswom Board to include Kuzhithalachal and
Kalluvila wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in
Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple. In the writ petition, it was
alleged that, though the Kuzhithalachlal and Kalluvila are at a
distance of 800m from the Kalliyoor Dikkubali Thara, the
Devaswom Commissioner issued the order dated 24.02.2023
removing the said wards from the Dikkubali Nirapara list of
Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, stating that those are outside
the radius of the Dikkubali Thara, i.e., outside the traditional
boundary.
2025:KER:26879
12. In Rajalakshmi [2023 (3) KHC 492], this Court
held that, in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom
Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and
ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani
Bhadrakali Devi Temple are performed promptly and arrange for
the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the
festivals in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the
usage. The Temple Advisory Committee, which consists of
devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in
Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section
31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to
the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the
temple activities and festivals according to the usage. In that
view of the matter, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore
Devaswom Board and its officials to include Kuzhithalachal and
Kalluvila wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in
Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, in violation of the accepted
boundary limit followed from time immemorial. Paragraphs 12
to 14 of the said decision read thus;
2025:KER:26879
"12. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
learned counsel for the 7th respondent Temple Advisory
Committee would submit that Kalluvila and Kuzhithalachal
falls within the boundary limits for conducting Dikkubali
and as such, there is no legal impediment in conducting
Dikkubali in those places. On the other hand, the learned
Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and
also the learned counsel for the party respondents would
place reliance on Ext.R2(b).
13. The pleadings and materials on record would show
that, for the first time Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards
were included in the list of places for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in
Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, in the year 2017. The
said fact is admitted by the petitioner. The specific stand
taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 6
is that those two places will not come within the accepted
boundary limit followed from time immemorial. In the year
2017, the then President of the Temple Advisory
Committee conducted 'Nirapara' in the house of his family
members situated in Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila area
without respecting the customary practice and rituals of
Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple. The devotees of the
temple raised protest on the ground that the infraction of
the customary rituals of the temple will invite untoward
incidents, detrimental to the residents of the desom.
Accordingly, the wish of the deity was ascertained by
conducting a 'Thiruvaiprasnam' in front of the deity, as
evidenced by Ext.R2(a) Prasnacharthu dated 21.01.2020,
in which it was found that conducting nirapara in areas
beyond its permitted limits violating the customary rituals
of the temple caused depletion of the Chaithanya of the
2025:KER:26879
deity. After 'Thiruvaiprasnam', a 'Prayachitham' was done
as a remedial measure for having deviated from the
customary rituals of the temple. The Mootha Vathi (main
priest) of the temple, vide Ext.R2(b) letter dated
28.01.2020, requested the 6th respondent Sub Group
officer not to deviate from the traditionally followed
boundary limits while conducting nirapara pooja during
Kaliyootu festival in the year 2020. Considering the above
aspect, the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner
issued Ext.R2(c) communication dated 25.08.2020,
directed the 4th respondent Assistant Devaswom
Commissioner that no deviation from the customary
practices of the temple shall be permitted in respect of the
conduct of Nirapara/Irakki pooja. Thereafter, a
Devaprasanam was conducted in the temple in November,
2022, in which it was found that deviation from customary
rituals and practices in conducting Nirapara has affected
the divine power of the deity.
14. In view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the 2nd respondent
Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the
regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the
practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are
performed promptly and arrange for the conduct of the
daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in
Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage.
The 7th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, which
consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria
prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-
section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to
render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials
2025:KER:26879
for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and
festivals according to the usage. In that view of the
matter, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd
respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials
to include Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards in Vellayani
in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Vellayani Sree
Bhadrakali Temple, in violation of the accepted boundary
limit followed from time immemorial."
13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, it is the statutory duty of the Travancore Devaswom
Board to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies
according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Devaswom are
performed promptly during Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam of the
year 1200ME (2025) from 26.03.2025 to 01.04.2025. The
Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, which consists of the
devotees falling within the eligibility criteria prescribed in sub-
clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of the Bye-laws (Rules) framed
under Section 31A of the Act, has a statutory duty to render
necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth
functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the
usage.
14. The pleadings and materials in this writ petition
would not show that the petitioner is having any hereditary right
2025:KER:26879
to make Pachapanthal and for Pattuvirikkal during Aswathy
Pongala Maholsavam in Vellayani Devaswom. Moreover, such
issues cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, since a decision on such issues
involve disputed question of facts.
15. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen
Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC
145], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of
mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a
statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is
a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory
obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance
of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate
tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit
of their jurisdiction.
16. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain
[(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a
writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right
with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of
some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said
decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a
writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law
2025:KER:26879
of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris,
Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial
discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive,
specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by
law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform
such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal
remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.
In such circumstances, this writ petition fails on the ground
of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
2025:KER:26879
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12765/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASWATHY PONGALA
MAHOLSAVAM IS SET TO COMMENCE ON
26/03/2025 TO 01/04/2025
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2025
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 17/03/2025
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
THATCHED COCONUT LEAVES ARRANGED BY THE
PETITIONER, WHICH ARE NOW KEPT INSIDE THE
TEMPLE PREMISES
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
'THEEVETTI' PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT
