Zamorin Raja Of Calicut vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 30 January, 2026

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Zamorin Raja Of Calicut vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 30 January, 2026

Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P2 order issued by the Commissioner-in-charge of the Malabar Devaswom Board constituting a special team to conduct a detailed enquiry into the affairs of the entire Zamorin Devaswom as regards the matters relating to Special Grade, 'A' Grade and 'B' Grade Temples.

2. The petitioner herein is the Zamorin Raja of Calicut. According to him, he is the hereditary trustee of the 3 Kovilakoms. There are about 43 temples and sub temples under his trusteeship. The petitioner is also the educational agency which runs the Zamorin's Guruvayurappan College and Zamorin's Higher Secondary Schools. According to the petitioner, the religious and educational institutions are administered in accordance with law and the Board has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal administration. It is contended that the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, ('MHRCE Act' for the sake of brevity) governs the administration. Neither the temple nor the educational institution is financed by the Government.

                                                                     2026:KER:7516
W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016                   :6:




       3.    It is contended that on 01.10.2016, he was served with a notice

issued by the 2nd respondent purportedly under Section 45 (c) and (d) of the MHRCE Act calling upon the petitioner to appear before the said authority on 26.10.2016 to respond to a complaint received by the said authority. According to the petitioner, he was also served with Ext.P2 order passed in I.A.No.11/2016 issued by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that even a casual perusal of the order would reveal that the said order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner asserts that the 2nd respondent has violated the provisions of Section 45 of the MHRCE Act while issuing the order. It is further contended that Ext.P2 order has been passed by an authority who is not competent to issue the same. It is urged that in terms of Section 8C of the MHRCE Act, the Commissioner shall be an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government and who is professing Hindu religion and a believer of god and temple worship. The 2nd respondent, at the time of his appointment as Commissioner, was not in the rank of Joint Secretary but was in the service of the erstwhile HR & CE Department. The 2nd respondent was put in charge during the interregnum to manage the routine affairs of the Board and was not competent to pass Ext.P2 order. It is further contended that the passing of the order by the 2nd respondent is a mala fide exercise. It is on these assertions that the instant Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                                                                          2026:KER:7516
W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016                     :7:

i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing Ext.P2 order as the same is without jurisdiction, vitiated by mala fides, against the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, illegal and arbitrary.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that the right of the Trustee to manage the affairs of the temple in the matter of religion though absolute, the Trustees are bound to administer the temple in accordance with the regulations. While exercising supervisory control, the authorities under the MHRCE Act are to ensure that there is no mismanagement by the Trustee. The appointments made by the Trustee without obtaining sanction as provided in Rule 10 under Section 100(2)(y) is illegal and it is for the said reason that the Commissioner had ventured to act to ensure that the Trustee exercises his power in terms of Sections 27 and 28 of the MHRCE Act. It is stated that it was while working as Deputy Commissioner that the 2nd respondent was put in additional charge of the Commissioner with all powers as vested with the Commissioner. A challenge can be mounted only after receipt of the enquiry report and on the initiation of the proceedings in terms of Section 45 of the Act. It is stated that numerous complaints were received against the Trustee and that is the reason why proceedings were initiated. As per Section 28 of the MHRCE Act, the Commissioner is competent to depute any official to inspect all movable and immovable property and all records, plans, correspondence accounts belonging 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :8:

to any religious institutions. The allegations in the petitions are grave and by keeping the Trustee under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry cannot cause any prejudice to the writ petitioner. According to the respondent, if the Trustee was aggrieved by the order to conduct an enquiry, the statutory remedy open to the petitioner is to file a revision petition under Section 99 of the Act and not by filing a Writ petition.

5. In the course of proceedings, respondent Nos. 4 to 23 were impleaded by order dated 31.05.2017.

6. We have heard the submissions of Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board, and Sri. A.C.Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondent.

7. It would be apposite to note that pursuant to the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the consequent formation of the State of Kerala, the Malabar District, which previously formed part of the erstwhile State of Madras, stood merged with the newly constituted State of Kerala. The temples situated in the Malabar region continued to be governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. In the year 2008, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Ordinance was promulgated, which marked a significant statutory intervention by providing for 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :9:

the constitution of a separate administrative body, namely, the Malabar Devaswom Board. The said Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008, whereby Section 7 was substituted and Sections 7A to 7L, Section 8, and Sections 8A to 8D were newly inserted into the parent enactment of 1951.

8. Under the substituted Section 7, the Malabar Devaswom Board was constituted as a body corporate having perpetual succession. Section 7 expressly mandates that upon the commencement of the Amendment Act, the Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute a Board in the name and style of "the Malabar Devaswom Board". The provision further confers upon the Board a distinct juristic personality, with a common seal and the statutory authority to acquire, hold, and dispose of both movable and immovable properties, to enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued in its own name. Further, Section 19E provides for the complete statutory transfer of assets and liabilities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department to the newly constituted Board. Upon the constitution of the Board under Section 7, the existing Department stood abolished by operation of law, and all its assets and liabilities stood transferred to and vested in the Board. Section 19G further safeguards the service conditions of employees of the abolished Department. It stipulates that upon the constitution of the Board, every full-time employee of the erstwhile Department shall be deemed to 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :10:

continue as a Government employee for all practical purposes, including pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits, as a vanishing category within the Board. Such employees are entitled to hold office on the same terms and conditions of service, and with the same rights and privileges, as would have been available to them had the Amendment Act of 2008 not been enacted, subject to any lawful alteration by the Board.

9. The 2nd respondent was in fact an employee of the existing department and as stated above was deemed to be a vanishing category within the board

10. Section 6(5) of the MHRCE Act defines the Commissioner, which reads as under:

"Commissioner" means the Commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 8C.

11. Section 8C of the MHRCE Act, 1951 defines Officers and Employees of the Board. Prior to the substitution by Act of 12 of 2018 (with effect from 01.01.2017), the provision read as under:

8C Officers and Employees of the Board:

(1) The government may appoint an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government, who is professing Hindu Religion and is a believer of God and temple worship as the Commissioner of the Board on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :11:

the Government who shall also function as the Secretary of the Board.

(2) He shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board who shall implement all decisions of the Board (3) He shall submit reports to the Government, once in three months, with respect to the working of the Board.

(4) The Board may appoint such number of Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and such other officers and staff as are necessary for discharging its functions under this Act. (5) The Board may create, with the approval of the Government, such number of posts of officers and employees of the Board, as it requires.

(6) The pay and allowances and other conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Board, appointed under sub-section (4), shall be such, as may be prescribed.

12. Ext.P2 which is the order impugned in this petition issued by the Commissioner in charge by invoking powers under Section 45 of the Act. At the time of passing of the order, the post of Commissioner should have been occupied by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government. It would also be pertinent to note that Section 8C of the Act was amended by Act 12 of 2018 and the amendment had come into force only on 01.01.2017 much after the passing of the impugned order.

                                                                         2026:KER:7516
W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016                   :12:




      13.   Section 45 of the Act reads as under:

Section 45. Power to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees:

(1) 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, 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 this 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.

(2) 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 explanation and the finding on each charge with the reasons therefor:

Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall also consult the Area Committee before passing the final order under sub-section (1).

                                                                     2026:KER:7516
W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016                 :13:

(3) Pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the trustee.

(4) It shall be open to an Assistant Commissioner to move the Deputy Commissioner to take action under sub-section (1) in respect of any trustee of an institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and to place the trustee under suspension pending the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3).

(5) A trustee who is suspended, removed or dismissed under sub-section (1) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order of suspension, removal or dismissal, appeal against the order to the Commissioner if it was passed by a Deputy Commissioner, and to the 3[State Government] if it was passed by the Commissioner.

14. It would be apposite to note that under Section 45, powers are conferred on the Deputy Commissioner, in respect of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and on the Commissioner, in the case of any other religious institution, to suspend, remove, or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustees for the reasons enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the said provision. However, the statute mandates that when action is proposed to be taken under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall frame specific charges against the trustee concerned and afford him an opportunity to meet such charges and to test the evidence adduced against him. The provision further stipulates that any order of suspension, removal, or dismissal shall explicitly state the charges framed, the explanation submitted by 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :14:

the trustee, and the findings recorded on each charge, together with the reasons therefor.

15. As per Section 45(3), pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, is empowered to place the trustee under suspension and to appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the trustee. Section 45(5) further provides that a trustee who is suspended, removed, or dismissed under sub-section (1) may, within one month from the date of receipt of such order, prefer an appeal against the said order--before the Commissioner, if the order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, and before the State Government, if the order is passed by the Commissioner.

16. In Manavikrama Zamorin Raja of Kozhikode v.

Commissioner1, it has been authoritatively held that proceedings under Section 45 are quasi-judicial in nature, and that the procedural safeguards applicable to the main enquiry would equally extend to ancillary proceedings arising therefrom. It is also relevant to note that an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner lies to the Commissioner.

17. We shall now advert to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Service Rules which empower the competent authority to appoint an officer to 1 1960 KHC 372 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :15:

hold substantively or to officiate in two or more independent posts simultaneously. In this context, reference may be made to Rule 53, Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, which reads as follows:

(a) A competent authority may appoint an officer to hold substantively or to officiate in two or more independent posts at one time.

(b) The competent authority appointing an officer to hold or officiate in a second post in addition to his own shall declare whether the officer holds full charge of the additional post or is appointed merely to discharge the current duties. The order shall also specify the amount of special allowance, if any, to be granted, subject to the prescribed limits.

RULING The term "independent" occurring in the above rule shall be construed to mean separate or distinct posts involving independent duties and responsibilities. A post subordinate to the one already held by the officer shall not be treated as an independent post for the purposes of this rule.

Government Decision No. 2

The following criteria shall be adopted to distinguish between "full additional charge" and "discharge of current duties":

(i) An officer appointed to hold "full additional charge"

shall perform all administrative, financial, and statutory functions and duties attached to that post.

(ii) An officer appointed merely to discharge current duties shall attend only to routine work pertaining to that post.

18. A conjoint reading of Rule 53(a) and (b) would indicate that while an officer holding a substantive post may be appointed to officiate in additional 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :16:

independent posts, the competent authority is statutorily obligated to clearly declare whether such appointment is by way of full additional charge or only for the discharge of current duties. The Ruling further clarifies that a subordinate post cannot be treated as an independent post for the purpose of such appointment.

19. In the case on hand, the post of Deputy Commissioner held by the second respondent was admittedly inferior in hierarchy to the post of Joint Secretary to the Government. In such circumstances, serious doubt arises as to whether the said officer could have been directed to officiate as Commissioner-in-Charge. It is significant to note that none of the respondents have asserted or produced any material to demonstrate whether the second respondent was appointed to hold "full additional charge" of the post or was merely entrusted with the discharge of current duties. This distinction assumes critical importance, inasmuch as only an officer appointed to hold full additional charge is legally empowered to exercise all administrative, financial, and statutory functions and duties attached to the higher post. Probably, it was after noting this aspect that a substitution was carried out to by Act 12 of 2018 w.e.f. 01/01/2017 by inserting "a Deputy Commissioner in the abolished department who is eligible to be promoted as Commissioner as per the provision contained in section 19 G and in the absence of such an officer, an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government" instead of "a 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :17:

Joint Secretary to Government" as it originally stood. But the pertinent aspect is that the amendment came into effect only on 1/1/2017 much after the issuance of Exhibit P2 on 23.09.2016. In view of the discussion, we are of the view that the Deputy Commissioner in the abolished department could not have been appointed as the Commissioner- in charge, and in that capacity could not have exercised quasi judicial powers by invoking powers under Section 45 of the Act.

20. We are of the view that Exhibit P2 cannot be sustained for yet another reason as well. We find that Exhibit P1 is the notice issued by the Commissioner-in-Charge purportedly under Sections 45(c) and (d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. A perusal of Exhibit P1 would disclose that the said notice dated 26.09.2016 was issued calling upon the respondent therein, who is the petitioner before this Court, to appear before the Commissioner-in-Charge on 26.10.2016 at 11.00 a.m. However, even before the scheduled date for appearance and without awaiting any response or explanation from the petitioner, Exhibit P2 order dated 23.09.2016 came to be passed in I.A. No. 01 of 2016 in M.P. No. 4 of 2016.

21. It is significant to note that in Exhibit P2, the Commissioner-in-Charge has specifically recorded that the order was passed on an application filed under Section 45(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Acting on the said interlocutory application, 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :18:

the Commissioner-in-Charge proceeded to allow the same and constituted a Special Team consisting of three officers to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations raised. The Special Team was further directed to undertake a comprehensive enquiry into the entire administrative functioning of the Zamorin Devaswom, with particular emphasis on matters relating to Special Grade, A Grade and B Grade temples, and to submit a report within a one month. The scope and sweep of the directions issued under Exhibit P2 clearly demonstrate that the order was not of a routine or ministerial nature, but one having wide-ranging administrative and statutory implications affecting the functioning of several temples and the rights of the petitioner.

22. As noticed above, the power vested in the Commissioner under Section 45 is not administrative in character but is distinctly quasi-judicial in nature. The statutory framework mandates strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The provision expressly requires that when it is proposed to initiate action under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall frame specific charges against the trustee concerned and afford him a reasonable opportunity to meet such charges and to test the evidence produced in support thereof. These safeguards are not empty formalities but are mandatory statutory requirements intended to protect the rights of the affected parties and to ensure fairness in the decision-making process.

                                                                    2026:KER:7516
W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016                 :19:

23. In the present case, it is not in dispute that Exhibit P2 was passed ex parte and without granting the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the impugned order was passed prior to the date fixed for appearance pursuant to the notice issued under Exhibit P1. Such a course of action strikes at the very root of fair procedure and renders the statutory hearing illusory and meaningless.

24. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from a patent violation of the principles of natural justice. We find absolutely no justification for the officer functioning as Commissioner-in-Charge to have exercised such drastic powers on the basis of an interlocutory application without even calling for an explanation from the affected party or granting an opportunity of personal hearing. It cannot be disputed that proceedings initiated under Section 45 have serious civil consequences, including interference with the management and administration of religious institutions. When such grave consequences are likely to ensue, the duty to adhere to procedural fairness becomes all the more imperative.

25. In these circumstances, the action of the Commissioner-in-Charge in passing Exhibit P2, without compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure and in flagrant disregard of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. On this ground alone, and also on account of the serious 2026:KER:7516 W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016 :20:

procedural infirmities noticed above, Exhibit P2 order is liable to be interfered with and is accordingly liable to be set aside.

Resultantly, this Writ Petition will stand allowed. Ext.P2 order issued by the Commissioner-in-charge will stand quashed. Sd/-

                                                RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
                                                     JUDGE
                                                        
                       
                                                      Sd/-
                                                   K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
                                                       JUDGE
    PS/30/01/26
                                                         2026:KER:7516
W.P.(C) No. 32595/2016             :21:




                APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32595 OF 2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1                    A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED
                              26-09-2016.
EXHIBIT P2                    A   TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   ORDER  DATED
                              23-09-2016,     ISSUED    BY    THE   2ND
                              RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3                    A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
                              MEETING DATED 30-09-2016.
EXHIBIT P4                    A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
                              24-11-2015.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court