Rajeevan P M vs P Nandakumar on 6 March, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Rajeevan P M vs P Nandakumar on 6 March, 2025

The petitioner filed this Contempt of Court Case under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, alleging willful violation of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-II judgment dated 05.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.26300 and 30457 of 2009. The petitioner claims that he is a beneficiary of that judgment and the respondents herein who are respondents 1 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.26300 of 2009 did not comply with the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-II judgement.

2. W.P.(C)Nos.26300 and 30457 of 2009 were filed raising a grievance in respect of the alleged rights to appropriate the amount deposited by the devotees at the 'Sopanam' of the Parassinikadavu Muthappan Temple, without being appropriated towards the temple fund, so as to have it distributed among the members of the three different families such as Kovval, Kannoth and Vadakkal, who are managing the affairs of the temple. In the writ petitions, a declaration was sought for, to the effect that the amount placed at the 'Sopanam' is 'Dakshina' to the Chief Priest and that the same cannot be termed as 'Kanikka' to the Deity. CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:18775 Ext.P6 order produced in those writ petitions issued by the Commissioner of Devaswom to the 'Madayan'/Chief Priest of the temple to stop the acts and deeds in appropriating the amounts placed by the devotees at 'Sopanam' was challenged and refund of the amounts already appropriated was also sought in those writ petitions.

3. After considering the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per the judgment dated 05.01.2018 by issuing certain directions. Paragraphs 21 to 23 and the operative portion of the said judgment read thus:

"21. Another important aspect to be noted is that 'Sopanam' in Sanskrit means 'footsteps'. The steps lead to the Sanctum Sanctorum, where the idol is situated or the Deity is placed. It cannot be forgotten that a devotee who is coming from a far away place, may not be knowing the custom/usage/practice (of taking the offering placed at the 'Sopanam' by the priest as Dakshina); who may place his offering to the Deity at the 'Sopanam' leading to the Sanctum Sanctorum (where the Deity is situated) and make his prayers accordingly. In the Muthappan temple involved herein, there is no dispute that persons are coming from far away places, who include Hindus, Christians and Muslims as well. In the said circumstance, what matters more is with CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:18775 regard to "will of the devotee", who makes the offerings. In other words, it is for the devotee to consider and place the offering, as to whether it should go to the Deity as 'Kanikka' or to the Priest/Madayan as 'Dakshina'. Once this position is made clear, the situation will be taken care of by the devotee himself by putting the offering in favour of the Deity as 'Kanikka' or in favour of the Priest/Madayan, as 'Dakshina', at the place where it is to be offered/placed. This will solve the issue once and for all. The offerer/devotee cannot be left in the dark as to the fate of his offering, concealing the fact that if it is placed in the 'Sopanam', it will never go to the Deity as 'Kanikka' (despite the will and wish of the devotee/offerer) and it will go only to the Madayan/Priest as 'Dakshina'.

22. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to cause the position to be brought to the notice of all concerned. Accordingly, there will be a direction to cause two vessels, preferably of Bronze or Copper of equal size (like Uruli or small pots) to be placed equidistantly at the 'Sopanam' with a clear, legible and readily readable inscription (in English and the Regional language) that one vessel will be for deposit of 'Dakshina' to the priest/ Madayan, while the contributions in the other vessel will form 'Kanikka' to the Deity. The amounts collected in the above two vessels shall be counted every day by the authorities concerned in presence of the representatives of both the Madayan/Devaswom/ representatives of devotees. The contributions collected in the vessel marked with 'Kanikka to the Deity could be appropriated as CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:18775 Devaswom/temple fund; whereas the contributions collected in the vessel marked with the inscription as 'Dakshina to Madayan/Priest' could be appropriated by Madayan after proper accounting, to be distributed among members of the three families. It is ordered accordingly.

23. With regard to the amounts already kept in the separate Bank accounts and the extent already appropriated by the petitioner Madayan and distributed among the members of the three families, based on the interim orders passed by this Court at different points of time with reference to the custom/usage, it shall be subject to the further orders to be passed by the competent authority, pursuant to Ext.R5(f) order passed by the Commissioner. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 charge memo and Ext.P6 order passed by the Commissioner issued against the Madayan/petitioner in WP(C)No.30457 of 2009 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. It is also made clear that, even after passing the orders by the departmental authorities/Dy.Commissioner pursuant to Ext.R5(f), the course already ordered by us with regard to the necessity to keep two separate vessels and appropriation of amounts separately by the priest/Madayan as 'Dakshina' and by the temple/Devaswom fund as 'Kanikka to the Deity' will continue to govern the field as a permanent arrangement.

Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly."

4. The petitioner claims that he is a member of the Kovval family which is one among the three families, managing affairs of the temple and entitled to ⅓ share in the amount collected as CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:18775 'Dakshina' in the vessel placed at the 'Sopanam' as directed by this Court. The petitioner further alleges that after collecting the amount deposited on a day-to-day basis, the Madayan retained the same in the bank account on a month-to-month basis. However, the share due to the different families was not paid. The amounts were previously paid in equal proportions in the form of cheques. The 1st respondent is the present Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The 2nd respondent is the present Madayan. They are bound to count the daily collection in the vessel meant for 'Dakshina' placed at the 'Sopanam' and to deposit the same in the bank on the same day. The amount has to be distributed by way of cheques in equal proportions to the three families, through their representatives, on a month-to-month basis. But since July 2021, the 2nd respondent has neither made the payment nor followed such an arrangement as directed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the act of the respondents is a clear contempt committed by them.

5. The 2nd respondent filed objections dated 08.06.2023 admitting the arrangements made by this Court in Annexure-II judgment. However, it is contended in the objections that the CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:18775 directions could not be followed for a short period due to the pendency of R.P.No.2 of 2020 filed before the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board, challenging inducting of one Madavan into the administration by P.M.Balakrishnan of Kovval tavazhy, after becoming General Manager and Trustee in the year 2020. It is stated in the objections that the R.P. was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.05.2023. The amount due in the year 2021 has been disbursed as lump sum whereas the amount for each month in 2022 was paid on a daily basis. The 2nd respondent produced Annexure-R2B copy of the last payment made in April 2022 along with the objections. Paragraphs 4 to 14 of that objections read thus:

"4) The administration of the temple was shared between the three tavazhies, and the various posts in the administration was filled from the senior most among the tavazhies following the marumakkathayam custom of inheritance. This practice has been the norm since time immemorial.

5) However When P.M. Balakrishnan of Kovval tavazhy became the General Manager and Trustee in 2020, he inducted one Madhavan into the administration who was not a member in the marumakkathayam line of inheritance.

This vested interest was challenged in R.P.No.2 of 2020 filed CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:18775 before Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board, the question being, the inheritance to the various posts, whether should be in the marumakkathayam line or the makkathayam line.

6) When the above R.P.No.2 of 2020 was pending, the then General Manager and Trustee P.M. Balakrishnan died on 03- 09-2021 and the next incumbent was P.M. Vijayan. Since the controversy regarding the illegal induction of the said Madhavan, overlooking the line of inheritance was being agitated in R.P.No.2 of 2020, one P.M. Narayanan also of Kovval tavazhy sought to challenge the promotion of the above said P.M. Vijayan to the post of General Manager and Trustee by filing O.A.No.7 of 2021 before the Deputy Commissioner Malabar Devaswom, and obtained an order of injunction against the said P.M. Vijayan from taking charge, vide orders dated 14-09-2021 of the Deputy Commissioner. However the said P.M. Vijayan had already taken charge on 04-09-2021 itself, before the above restraining order, therefore the order of injunction became infructuous.

7) The said Narayanan also filed an application to the Branch Manager of the bank to stop the withdrawal of the dakshina amounts deposited and also the subsequent disbursement of amounts to the various tavazhies. True copy of the application dated 16-09-2021 is produced herewith and maybe marked as Annexure R2A.

8) Therefore since that date, no amounts could be withdrawn or disbursed to the various tavazhy members. This fact is known to all the families including the petitioner CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 10 2025:KER:18775 and his tavazhy. The said Narayanan P.M. stated above is none other than a member of the petitioner's own tavazhy, namely Kovval.

9) The pendency of R.P.No.2 of 2020 was another reason for the non withdrawal or disbursement of amounts from the bank. Subsequent to this the lockdown in the country was another reason. It is submitted that thereafter, the erstwhile trustee and General Manager removed the wrongly inducted candidate Madhavan from the administration and the administration of the temple was thereafter being run smoothly. I took charge as General Manager and Trustee on 28-12-2021.

10) The dakshina amounts collected and counted everyday has been deposited in the bank ever since the Annexure II judgment of this hon'ble Court in 2018. No person in any of the three tavazhies have a complaint that amounts have not been deposited. It is only the member of the petitioner's tavazhy that requested the bank not to permit withdrawal or disbursement of the same.

11) The pendency of R.P.No.2 of 2020 and O.A.No.7 of 2021 before the authorities along with the request Annexure R2A stated above by the petitioner's tavazhy member to the bank prevented the withdrawal and disbursement of amounts to the three tavazhies. However now the RP 2 of 2020 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 15-05-2023 though the petition to withdraw was filed on 29-03-2023.

12) Thereafter the amounts due has been disbursed on a day to day basis. The amounts due in 2021 has been disbursed together as lumpsum whereas the amounts for CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 11 2025:KER:18775 each month in 2022 is being paid on a daily basis. As on date, amounts upto April 2022 has already been disbursed. True copy of the last payment made for April 2022 is produced herewith and maybe marked as Annexure R2B, The remaining amounts due for every month upto May 2023 will also be paid on a daily basis which will be over within the next two weeks.

13) It is submitted that all members of the three tavazhies were fully aware of the above circumstances and the situation in which the amounts due were with held by the bank The representatives of all three tavazhies have been present on all days when the collection was being counted and transferred to the bank.

14) It is knowing fully well about the above situation that the petitioner filed the above contempt of court case only to harass me. I submit that there has been no contempt committed by me. I have explained the situation and I pray that the contempt of court case maybe dismissed as frivolous"

6. As directed by this Court, the Malabar Devaswom Board filed a statement dated 14.07.2023, wherein it is contended that the petitioner was not a party to W.P.(C) No.26300 of 2009 and also there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner is a member of any one of the three families. Hence, he has no right to move contempt of court proceedings against non-compliance if any of the directions in Annexure A-II judgment. If any of the parties to CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 12 2025:KER:18775 that writ petition is aggrieved by the decision of the Trustee of a religious institution listed under Section 38 of the HR and CE Act, they can file a revision petition before the Commissioner. It is further contended by the Malabar Devaswom Board that after the filing of the above contempt case, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to verify the facts and he reported that delay occurred in the payment from 2021 onwards for the reason of filing of R.P.No.2 of 2020 before the Commissioner regarding the hereditary right in the temple. Soon after the final decisions in that case, all dues were paid up to May 2023.

7. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 19.07.2023, to the objections filed by the 2nd respondent contending that the 'Dakshina' has to be counted in the presence of representatives of the respective tavazhies and representative of Madayan. This process has not been carried out for the past more than 2 years. The pendency of the R.P. had nothing to do with the counting and distribution of money.

8. Again as directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent filed a statement dated 03.10.2023 producing therewith Annexure R2A statement showing the daily collection of the amount as 'Dakshina' CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 13 2025:KER:18775 for the month of August and September 2023 and also Annexure R2B kanikka collection from the vazhipad counter for the month of August and September 2023. The 2nd respondent further produced Annexure R2C details of collection from the 'Bandarams' for the very same months of 2023. To the said statement the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 31.10.2023 contending that none of the members of Kovval family were made to participate in the counting process and they have been shunted out wrongfully, which is a clear violation of the order of this Court. The 2nd respondent again filed an additional statement dated 28.02.2024 producing therewith Exts. R2D to R2F documents.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the collection in the vessel kept for the purpose of 'Dakshina' to the Priest, is not properly distributed among the members of three tavazhies as directed in Annexure-II judgment of this Court. Hence the 2nd respondent, who is the present Madayan as well as CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 14 2025:KER:18775 the 1st respondent, who has to supervise these acts, committed civil contempt.

11. The learned standing counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board submitted that the Commissioner is an unnecessary party to the contempt case. The cause of action stated herein is different and hence, it does not fall under the purview of contempt of Annexure-II judgment. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- Madayan submitted that it is true that for some period, the amount collected as 'Dakshina' could not be properly distributed due to the pendency of an R.P. filed by one of the members of the tavazhy, challenging the appointment of another person as Administrator as well as due to the widespread of the pandemic Covid-19 during 2020-21. Now, after the disposal of the R.P., the amounts are properly counted every day in the presence of the persons mentioned in Annexure-II judgment and being distributed among the representatives of the three tavazhies on a month-to-month basis.

12. Though the petitioner contends that the amount received as 'Dakshina' in the vessel kept for that purpose at the 'Sopanam' as directed by this Court in Annexure-II judgment dated CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 15 2025:KER:18775 05.01.2018 has been not distributed after July 2021, Annexure R2A to Annexure R2F documents produced by the 2nd respondent as well as the statement filed by the Malabar Devaswom Board would show that after the disposal of R.P.No.2 of 2020, on 29.03.2023, the amount has been equally distributed among the members of the three tavazhies mentioned in Annexure-II judgment of this Court. The statement filed by the Malabar Devaswom Board would show that now day-to-day collections are counted in the presence of all the respective persons mentioned in the judgment of this Court and after depositing the money in the bank account, every month it was equally divided and paid to the members of the three tavazhies by the 2nd respondent. It is true that for some period after July 2021 till March 2023, the money received as 'Dakshina' in the vessel kept at the 'Sopanam' for that purpose was not distributed among the three tavazhies every month. But there is an explanation for the same in the objections filed by the 2nd respondent. It was due to the pendency of another 'lis.' mooted by one of the tavazhy members and also due to the widespread of the pandemic Covid-19. These circumstances stated in the objections filed by the 2nd respondent CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 16 2025:KER:18775 as well as brought to our notice during hearing of the above contempt case, can be taken as supervening circumstances that prevented the respondents in complying with the directions in Annexure-II judgment for the period from July 2021 till March 2023. The submissions made at the Bar and the materials on record show that the directions in Annexure-II judgment are now being complied by the respondents.

13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no prima facie material to find that the respondents have committed civil contempt, by willfully violating the directions in Annexure-II judgment dated 05.01.2018 in W.P.(C) Nos.26300 and 30457 of 2009.

In the result, the contempt case stands closed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 17 2025:KER:18775 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1020/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HR & CE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE IN O A NO 35 OF 2005 DATED 27-12-2006.

Annexure II A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W P © NO 26300 OF 09 DATED 5.1.2018.

Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH WOULD SHOW THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PARASSINI MADAPURA KOVVAL THAVAZHI DATED NIL.

Annexure IV True copy of the updated passbook of the bank account maintained by the Petitioner in which the amounts get deposited Annexure V True copy of the Coinwar Register which is to be maintained by the administrative authority of the temple RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :

Annexure R 2-A True copy of the application dated 16-09- 2021.

Annexure R 2-B True copy of the last payment made for April 2022.

Annexure R2 A True copy of The daily collection of the amounts at the sopanam (dakshina) for the months of August 2023 and September 2023.

Annexure R2 B True copy of the Kanikka collection from the vazhipadu counter which is also counted daily for the months of August 2023 and September 2023.

Annexure R2 C True copy of the collection from the moola bandaram for August 2023 and September CON.CASE(C) NO. 1020 OF 2023 18 2025:KER:18775 2023.

Exhibit R2D True copy of the daily collection registrar at the sopanam for the month of january 2024.

Exhibit R2E True copy of the amount received in january 2024 as dakshina and wich was distributed by the way of cheques from the bank received dated 14-02-2024.

Exhibit R2F True copy of the amount received in january 2024 as dakshina and wich was distributed by the way of cheques from the bank received dated 14-02-2024.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court