Rajesh.S vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2118 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rajesh.S vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2026

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

                                                     2026:KER:17125
W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​    ​    ​      1​     ​   ​   ​    ​




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                                     &

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947



                         WP(C) NO. 6836 OF 2026


PETITIONER:

             RAJESH.S​
             AGED 43 YEARS​
             S/O. SIVARAN ACHARI RAJESH BHAVAN, LSPO,
             NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690571


             BY ADVS. ​
             SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ​
             SRI.R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)​
             SMT.E.S.SONI​



RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA​
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
             (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695001
                                                 2026:KER:17125
W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​   ​   ​    2​    ​   ​   ​    ​



     2       TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​
             DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
             PIN - 695003

     3       DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER​
             TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS,
             NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
             PIN - 695003

     4       ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER​
             KARUNAGAPALLY GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
             KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518

     5       SUB GROUP OFFICER​
             NEDIYANIKKAL DEVASWOM TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
             THAMARAKKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690530

             BY ADVS.
             SRI. G. BIJU, SC, TDB
             SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION          (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.02.2026,         THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                    2026:KER:17125
W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​       ​        ​      3​   ​         ​      ​    ​


                                     JUDGMENT

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

​ ​ This Writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

​ 2.​ The petitioner, Sri. Rajesh S., states that he along with some other devotees have created and registered a Trust and decided to conduct a spiritual summit consisting of speeches of Sanyasis and Bhajans as 'Hindu Ekatha Sammelan'.

​ 3.​ On 16.01.2026, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 request to the President of the Temple Advisory Committee seeking permission for the conduct of the said Ekatha Sammelan and Bhajans at Thamarakulam Nediyanickal Bhagavathy Temple Ground on 01.03.2026 from 4.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. A copy of the request was forwarded to the Sub Group Officer of TDB.

​ 4.​ The petitioner states that the Temple Advisory Committee has expressed its willingness to permit the temple ground for the aforesaid purpose vide Ext.P2 letter. However, the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, as per proceedings dated 13.02.2026 in ROC No. 2466/2026/M1 has rejected the request of the petitioner to grant permission to use the temple ground for the Hindu Ekatha Sammelan. The petitioner has produced a copy of the said 2026:KER:17125 W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​ ​ ​ 4​ ​ ​ ​ ​

proceedings as Ext.P3.

​ 5.​ Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

a.​ issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction quashing Exhibit.P-3 order of the 2nd respondent dated 13.02.2026.

b.​ issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction, directing the Devaswom Board to permit the petitioner to conduct the Hindu Ekatha Sammelan scheduled to be held on 01.03.2026 in the devaswom ground of Nediyanickal temple as permitted in Exhibit.P-4. ​

6.​ The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the denial of permission to the petitioner to conduct Hindu Spiritual Summit is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 24 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Board is duty-bound to provide for the educational uplift, social and cultural advancement of the Hindu community.

​ 7.​ The learned counsel would further submit that the Board has granted permission to conduct the Onam Agricultural Fest in the temple ground. But it denied permission for a spiritual summit of Hindus and Bhajans. The approach of the Travancore Devaswom Board is reprehensible.

​     8.​    On the other hand, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel
                                                          2026:KER:17125
W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​    ​        ​    5​    ​    ​     ​    ​

for the Travancore Devaswom Board, would submit that the proposed programme is a political programme. It is submitted that this Court in W.P.(C) No. 41819 of 2023 has issued directions not to use the temple premises for political purposes.

9.​ The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proposed programme has no political colour; instead, it is intended for the upliftment of the Hindu religion.

10.​ We have heard the submissions of Sri. Krishna Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and Sri. S. Rajmohan, learned Senior Government Pleader.

11.​ We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and perused the records. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that by Ext.P3 order, the Board has denied permission for the conduct of the Ekatha Sammelan in the temple grounds of Thamarakulam Nediyanickal Devi Temple. The reason stated in the rejection is that the application submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the terms of the Circular dated 18.03.2013.

12.​ There are rival contentions between the contesting parties as to the objective of the proposed programme.

13.​ The principal reliefs sought in the Writ Petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Board to permit the use of the temple ground for conducting the Hindu Ekatha Sammelan scheduled on 2026:KER:17125 W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​ ​ ​ 6​ ​ ​ ​ ​

01.03.2026. The other relief sought is to quash Ext.P3 order issued by the 2nd respondent Board.

14.​ Section 15A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1950 enumerates the duties of the Board. The provision mandates that the Board shall:

(i) ensure that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies, in accordance with the practices prevailing in the religious institutions, are performed properly and without interruption;

(ii) monitor whether the administrative officials, employees, and those connected with religious rites are functioning appropriately;

(iii) ensure the proper maintenance and overall upliftment of Hindu religious institutions; and

(iv) establish and maintain adequate facilities in temples for the benefit of devotees.

15.​ Section 16 of the Act deals with supervision and control. It provides that, subject to Part I of the Act, the Board shall exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board as well as those of the Devaswom Department.

16.​ Section 31 concerns the management of Devaswoms. Under this provision, and subject to Part I of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the Board is entrusted with the management of the properties and affairs of all Devaswoms, whether incorporated or unincorporated. It is also responsible for arranging the conduct of daily worship, ceremonies, 2026:KER:17125 W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​ ​ ​ 7​ ​ ​ ​ ​

and temple festivals in accordance with established usage.

17.​ The learned Standing Counsel has brought to the attention of this Court the circular dated 18.03.2013 issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board which prohibits the letting out temple grounds to political parties and communal organizations. The relevant portion of the circular is extracted hereunder:

"1.​ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ള ക്ലബ്ബുകളുടെയും മറ്റും ആഭിമുഖ്യത്തിൽ നടത്തുന്ന മത്സര കളികൾക്ക് പ്രതിദിനം 1000/- (ആയിരം) രൂപ വാടക ഈടാക്കുന്നതിന് അനുവദിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു.

2.​ രാഷ്ട്രീയ പാർട്ടികൾ, സമുദായ സംഘടനകൾ എന്നിവർക്ക് അനുവാദം നൽകുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് ബോർഡുത്തരവ് വാങ്ങേണ്ടതാണ്.

3.​ വർഗ ്ഗീയ സ്വഭാവമുള്ള സംഘടനകൾ നടത്തുന്ന ചടങ്ങുകൾക്കോ വർഗ ്ഗീയ വിദ്വേഷം ജനിപ്പിക്കുന്ന തരത്തിലുള്ള ചടങ്ങുകൾക്കോ അനുവാദം നൽകേണ്ടതില്ല .

4.​ ക്ഷേത്രങ്ങളിൽ ഭക്തജനങ്ങൾക്ക് സൗകര്യമുണ്ടാക്കുന്ന ഏതെങ്കിലും പ്രവൃത്തികൾ ഉണ്ടാകുവാൻ പാടില്ല.

5. ക്ഷേത്ര ചടങ്ങുകൾക്ക് ഏതെങ്കിലും വിധത്തിലുള്ള തടസ്സം ഉണ്ടാകുവാൻ പാടില്ല."

18.​ In the present case, Ext.P1 is a request submitted by the petitioner before the Temple Advisory Committee. Admittedly, no request was made before the Board. The Board has issued a circular prohibiting the use of temple premises for programmes organised by any political organisation or at their behest. The specific contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the proposed Hindu Ekatha Sammelan is being conducted at the instance of a political organisation. In any event, under the statutory scheme of the Act, any request of this nature ought to have been placed before the Board, which alone is vested with the authority to 2026:KER:17125 W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​ ​ ​ 8​ ​ ​ ​ ​

take a decision in such matters. The Temple Advisory Committee has no statutory role in granting permission for the use of temple premises for such purposes. It is in tune with the circular that the interdictory order was issued by the board and permission was refused.

19.​ In Dr. Raj Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College Bihar Sharif and others1, the Apex Court has held that a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the authorities to do something; it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.

20.​ In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to establish his right and the duty cast upon the respondents. Therefore, the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

Writ Petition is dismissed.

            ​          ​

​           ​          ​        ​     ​   ​           ​         ​        Sd/-
​           ​          ​            ​ ​   ​                    RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
​           ​          ​        ​     ​   ​           ​             ​       JUDGE​
​
​           ​          ​        ​     ​   ​           ​         ​           Sd/-​
        ​          ​        ​                 ​       ​             K. V. JAYAKUMAR
                                                  ​        ​    ​         JUDGE
BR​





    AIR 1962 SC 1210; 1962 KHC 369
                                                     2026:KER:17125
W.P(C) No.6836/2026​ ​   ​      ​    9​   ​    ​    ​    ​




                APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6836 OF 2026


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P-1                  TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE
                             PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2026
Exhibit P-2                  TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE TEMPLE
                             ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATED 25.01.2026
Exhibit P-3                  TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM
                             BOARD DATED 13.02.2026
Exhibit P-4                  TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY
                             THE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THAMARAKKULAM
                             GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.08.2025
Exhibit P-5                  TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS

HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.30974/2025 DATED 27.08.2025