Kerala High Court
K. Purushothaman Nair vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 March, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
1
2025:KER:26954
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.9950 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 K. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR
AGED 82 YEARS
S/O. LATE KUNJIKRISHNAN PILLAI GAYATHRI, VELLAYAANI,
NEMOM. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
2 K. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. LATE KESHAVA PILLAI, PICHI VILA, VELLAYAANI,
NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
3 RAMESH KUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, UDIYAMPARA VEEDU, UKKODE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
4 RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. LATE SADASIVAN NAIR, RASH NIVAS, CHELLANDU,
KALLIYOOR, UKKODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695020
5 VIJAYAKUMAR S.
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. LATE SADASIVAN NAIR, NAVANEETHAM, SREE CHITHRA
GARDENS, SHANTHIVILA, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695020
6 VIJAYAN NAIR
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. LATE PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI, VYSHAKHI, VELLAYAANI,
NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
7 RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, PANAYIL VEEDU, VELLAYAANI, NEMOM
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2
2025:KER:26954
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
BY ADVS.
K.B.PRADEEP
SRADHA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 695020
2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF DEVASWOM
NEYYATTINKARA GROUP,NEYYATTINKARA SREEKRISHNA SWAMY
TEMPLE, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
3 SUB GROUP OFFICER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VELLAYANI DEVI TEMPLE,
NEMOM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
4 *SREEKANTAN NAIR
S/O SIVASANKARA PILLAI, PULIYARATHALA
VEEDU,MUKULOORMOOLA,VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,OOKKODE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695020
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R4 AS PER THE ORDER DATED
20/03/2025 IN IA NO 1/2025 IN WP(C) 9950/2025
BY ADV S.HRIDYA
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:
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
3
2025:KER:26954
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are stated to be the 'Sthanees' of
Major Vellayani Devi Temple, which is a temple under the
management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board,
have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent
Board to consider Ext.P3 representation dated 18.02.2025; a writ
of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit two among
the petitioners, which they would suggest, to accompany Thanga
Thirumudi on 31.03.2025, during Kalam Kaval in Aswathy Pongala
Maholsavam of 1200ME (2025); and a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to ensure the rights of 'Sthanees'
secured by the declaration of the Civil Court vide Exts.P1 and P2
judgments are scrupulously honoured.
2. On 20.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3.
Notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the
additional 4th respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for
respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the additional
4th respondent.
4. 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 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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.
5. 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-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.
6. Clause (2) of the Rules deals with objectives of the
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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.
7. Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership. Clause
(3) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the 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.
8. 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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 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.
9. 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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 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.
10. 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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.
11. 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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;
"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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
'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 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 3 rd
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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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 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."
12. 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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.
13. The pleadings and materials in this writ petition would
not show that the petitioners are having any hereditary right to
accompany Thanga Thirumudi, on 31.03.2025 during Kalam Kaval
in Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam of 1200ME (2025) of Vellayani
Devaswom. A reading of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of the civil
court would not show that the right to accompany Thanga
Thirumudi during Kalam Kaval in Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam
was one of the issues decided in those judgments. At any rate,
such an issue cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, since a decision on such an issue
involves disputed question of facts.
14. 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
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
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.
15. 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 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. However,
considering the fact that various writ petitions are being filed
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
before this Court in connection with Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam
of the year 1200ME (2025) in Vellayani Devaswom, we deem it
appropriate to direct the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom
Board to take necessary steps to ensure that the entire activities
in connection with the festival are under the direct supervision of
the 2nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner,
Neyyanttinkara Group.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
W.P.(C) NO.9950 of 2025
2025:KER:26954
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9950/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.
203/2008 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 18.11.2013 WITH TYPED
COPY.
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. NO.
92/2004 OF 1 ST ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 09.04.2013 WITH TYPED
COPY.
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1
ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/02/2025
