Easananan Namboothiri vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 11 March, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Easananan Namboothiri vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 11 March, 2026

This Writ Appeal is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 29176 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition, holding that the matter in issue is to be decided by the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

The Writ Petition was filed by Easananan Namboothiri and Harinarayanan Namboothiri, challenging Ext. P9 order of the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board dated 29.01.2014, whereby the Board appointed Sri. K.K. Krishnan Namboothiri as the Thantri of Sree Valiyakulangara Devaswom by removing the petitioners from the Thanthriship of the said temple.

3. In the Writ Petition, the writ petitioners stated that they are hereditary Thanthris of Sree Valiyakulangara Devi Temple owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The 1st appellant, Sri. Easananan Namboothiri is the Karanavar and the 2nd appellant is the member of Plakkudi Illom, which has the hereditary right of 'Thanthram' of the said temple. According to the petitioners, the said fact was also recorded in the 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 4 report of the Assistant Commissioner of Devaswom of the State of Travancore of the year 1084 ME (Ext.P1). In exercise of the vested right of Thanthram in the family, the predecessors of the appellants performed the Thanthric rights, and the appellants have continued to perform them for the past several years.

4. According to the petitioners, the hereditary right of Thanthriship is evident from Exts. P2 to P8 communications between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent Board.

5. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the writ petitioners came to know of Ext. P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent, Secretary,TDB, only when a suit was filed by certain persons claiming to be the office bearers of the Upadesaka Samithi. Ext. P9 order was passed without issuing any notice to the appellants and solely on the basis of a 'Devaprasnam Charthu'. Ext. P10 is the copy of the Devaprasnam Charthu.

6. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P12 order, relegating the writ petitioners to the Civil Court and to maintain the status quo till then. Therefore, the Writ Petition was amended, incorporating a prayer to quash Ext.P12 order also.

7. The stand of the Board is that, as per the Pathivu Book, the Thanthric right belongs to Kundoor Mallisserry Illom and that it was only because they did not turn up to perform the Thanthric rights that the family of the appellants was entrusted with the Thanthram. It is further stated that, as per the Prasnacharthu, the Thanthric rights were granted to the 5th respondent, who is a member of Kundoor Mallisserry Illom.

2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 5

8. The party respondents 4 and 5 relied on Ext. R5(a) Thanathu Register and Ext.R5(b) Devaprasna Charthu.

9. The respondents 4 and 5 contended that the Thanthri is considered the father of the Deity and cannot be removed. They further contended that the appellants are performing Thanthram as delegated by the family of the respondents. The contesting respondents have placed reliance on the judgment reported in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Others1, wherein it was held that the findings of Devaprasnam are to be implemented by the Board.

10. The appellants filed a reply affidavit contending that Ext.R5(b) is not the real Prasnacharthu. The real Prasnacharthu is Ext. P10. In the reply affidavit, it was also contended that the Thanathu/Paditharam Register is only an account book and that there is no practice or precedent of entering the name of the Thanthri in such a register. It was further contended that the entries therein regarding Thanthram are only interpolations.

11. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition, relegating the petitioners to the Civil Court and maintaining Ext.P9 order of the Board till a decision is taken by the Civil Court. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

"The issue in this writ petition is related to claim of 'Thanthri', of Sree Valiyakulangara Devi Temple. The claim of the petitioner has been disputed and denied by the party respondents. According to the petitioners, their family alone has the right to become a Thantri of the temple and order passed by 1 (1993 KHC 523) 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 6 the Devaswom Board by Ext.P9 appointing the 5th respondent as a Thanthri based on the 'devaprasnam' is illegal and unsustainable.

2. The party respondents submits that a civil suit is pending, initiated by the Temple Advisory Committee and the matter can be agitated by the petitioners before the civil court. It is further contended that Kundoor Mallissery illom alone is having a right to appoint Thanthries.

3. Essentially the issue appears to be an inter se dispute between the petitioners' family and the family of the 5th respondent. In such a circumstance, this Court is of the view that the civil court has to decide the matter and not by any other authority. However as interim measure, the appointment made by Ext.P9 can be continued till the civil court otherwise orders. It is open for the civil court to pass any interim order in this matter as regards the claim for the appointment as Thanthri of the temple, during the pendency of the civil litigation. The writ petition is disposed of, as above."

12. On going through the judgment, it could be seen that the learned Single Judge has not only relegated the petitioner to the Civil Court, but also ordered that Ext. P9 order will be in force until otherwise ordered by the Civil Court.

13. This Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench as per order dated 12.01.2017, However, the appellants preferred R.P.No. 138/2017 challenging the dismissal of the Writ Appeal. By the order dated 14.02.2017 in the RP, the Writ Appeal was restored to file.

The Submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellants:

14. Sri. P. Haridas, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 7 that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the Thanthric right is not a mere civil right and the removal or induction of the Thanthri by the Board is amenable to judicial review.

15. It is further submitted that Exts. P9 and P12 orders are the outcome of a colourable exercise of power by the Board and are liable to be interfered with by judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further point out that Ext. P9 order was passed on a misinterpretation of the Devaprasnam.The 2nd respondent has exceeded his powers and authority while passing Ext. P9 order. It is further contended that the Thanthrihood is a hereditary office and right, and that the owner or administrator of a temple has no authority to remove a Thanthri. 16. The right of Thanthriship flows from the installation and consecration of the Deity and continues in the family in accordance with the custom and practice followed in the State of Kerala. The relationship between the Deity and the Thanthri is inseparable, and such a right carries perpetual succession.

17. The learned counsel submitted that Ext. P9 was passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, and is therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that Ext. P9 was not served on the petitioners.

The Submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Board

18. Sri. C.K. Pavithran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 8 Travancore Devaswom Board, submitted that Ext.P9 order was passed by the Secretary of the Board on the premise that the Thanthram of the temple was the hereditary right of Kundoor Mallisserry Illom and as per the revelation of Devasprasnam, Devahitham was to reinstate the Thanthriship to the members of Kundoor Mallisserry Illom. The Assistant Commissioner has also submitted a report as to the appointment of the priests of the said Illom for the performance of Thanthric rights. The learned counsel submitted that Exts. P9 and P12 orders are legal and valid.

The Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5 19. Sri. G. Beno, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, would submit that the Thanthric rights of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple were performed by the members of Kundoor Mallisserry Illom. They are the hereditary trustees of the said temple. Later, due to some reasons, the members of the Kundoor Mallisserry Illom could not perform the Thanthric rights and the petitioners' family performed the Thanthram as delegated by Kundoor Mallisserry Illom.

Judicial Evaluation

20. According to the petitioners, the Thanthram of Sree Valiyakulangara Devi Temple was the hereditary right of Plakkudi Illom. The ancestors of the petitioners performed the said right and now it is conducted by the petitioners.

                                                                                    2026:KER:21608
W.A.1021/2016                                  9                                          
      



      21.     A Devaprasnam was conducted in the temple in 2013.

According to the petitioners, Ext.P10 is the Prasnacharthu, whereas respondents 4 and 5 (the party respondents) claim that Ext.R5(b) is the Ashtamangala Prasnacharthu.

22. In Ext.P10, there is no mention regarding the Thanthriship of the temple. However, in Ext.R5(b) Prasnacharthu, one paragraph states about the Thanthriship of the temple, which is extracted hereunder:

തന്ത്രി വിഷയം "ഇന്ന് ഇവിടെ നടത്തുന്ന തന്ത്രി പൂർവീകമായി ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നതല്ലെന്ന് അഷ്ടമംഗല പ്രശ്നവശാലും ഇപ്പോൾ തൽക്കാല പ്രശ്നവശാലും പൂർണ ്ണ മായി കാണിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. പൂർവ്വികമായ തന്ത്രിയെത്തന്നെ ആചാര്യനായി സ്വീകരിച്ചു ഇവിടുത്തെ എല്ലാവിധ താന്ത്രിക കൃത്യങ്ങളും നിർവഹിക്കേണ്ടതാണെന്ന് ദേവിയുടെ അഭിപ്രായമുള്ളതായി കാണുന്നു. എന്നാൽ കുറച്ചു കാലത്തോളമായി താന്ത്രിക കർത്തവ്യങ്ങൾ "പ്ലാക്കുടി " ഇല്ലത്തു നിന്ന് നടത്തിവരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് മാനുഷിക പരിഗണന വെച്ച് (ദേവിയുടെ ഹിതം പൂർണമല്ല ) പൗരാണിക തന്ത്രി കുണ്ടിൽ മല്ലിശ്ശേരിയും ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ തന്ത്രി പ്ലാക്കുടിയും ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട മറ്റു വ്യക്തികളും ദേവസ്വo ബോർഡും കൂടി ആലോചിച്ചു ഉചിതമായ തീരുമാനം എടുത്ത് നടപ്പിലാക്കുകയും വേണം. അങ്ങനെ ചെയ്യുന്നത് ശ്രേയസ്സാണോ എന്ന് വാചകം ഒഴിവു നോക്കിയതിൽ (12 ൽ പാപിയില്ലാണ്ട് വ്യാഴം അനുകൂലിക്കണം. കന്നിരാശി വരികയാൽ ശുഭമെന്നു കണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു."

23. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that in S. Mahendran (supra), this Court held that the Devaswom Board is bound to implement the Devahitham as revealed in Devaprashnam. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

"36. The Thanthri of the temple Sri Maheswararu had mentioned about the Devaprasnams conducted at Sabarimala by well known astrologers in Ext. C2. He had mentioned in that reply that in all the Devaprasnams it was revealed that young women should not be 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 10 permitted to worship at the temple. The report of the Devaprasnam conducted in 1985 (from 5-4-1985 to 8-4-1985) was exhibited as Ext. C1. That is a Devaswom publication, the authenticity of which is not in dispute. The English translation of the relevant portion contained at page 7 of the original report reads as follows:

"It is seen that the deity does not like young ladies entering the precincts of the temple".

C.W. 5, the Secretary of the Ayyappa Seva Sangham, who was present at the time of Devaprasnam had spoken about what was revealed at the Devaprasnam. First respondent in its counter affidavit has mentioned about the practice followed to set right controversial religious and ritualistic problems. It is stated that the Thanthri will suggest that it can be resolved by a Devaprasnam. The practice of resorting to Devaprasnam to ascertain the wishes of the deity had been in vogue from time immoral and the Thanthri of Sabarimala also had suggested conduct of Devaprasnam whenever occasion arose. The report of the Devaprasnam is rather conclusive or decisive. The wishes of the Lord were thus revealed through the well known method of Devaprasnam and the temple authorities and worshippers cannot go against such wishes. If the wish of Lord Ayyappa as revealed in the Devaprasnam conducted at the temple is to prohibit woman of a particular age group from worshipping in the temple, the same has to be honoured and followed by the worshippers and the temple authorities. The Board has a duty to implement the astrological findings and prediction on Devaprasnam. The Board has therefore no power to act against that report which will be virtually disregarding the wishes of the deity revealed in the prasnam."

24. There are rival contentions as to which document constitutes the genuine Prasnacharthu, i.e., whether it is Ext. P10 or Ext. R5(b). 25. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the reason for vesting the Thanthric right in the 5th respondent, Krishnan Namboothiri, 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 11 on the basis of nomination by the 4th respondent, Sankaran Namboothiri, is the revelations of the astrologers in the Ashtamangala Devaprasnam that the members of Kundoor Mallisserry Illom hold the hereditary Thanthram. 26. It would be apposite to extract the contents of Ext.P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent, Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board, dated 29.01.2014.

"തിരുവിതാംകൂർ ദേവസ്വം ബോർഡ് സെക്രട്ടറിയുടെ നടപടിക്രമം (സാന്നിദ്ധ്യം പി.ആർ.ബാലചന്ദ്രൻ നായർ) സംഗ്രഹം ഹരിപ്പാൻ ഗ്രൂപ്പിലെ വലിയകുളങ്ങര ദേവസ്വത്തിലെ താന്ത്രികാവകാശം

-ശ്രീ.കെ.കെ.കൃഷ്‌ണൻ നമ്പൂതിരിയക്ക് നൽകുന്നതിന് അനുവദിച്ച് ഉത്തരവ് പുറപ്പെടുവിക്കുന്നു നടപടി ഉത്തരവ് നമ്പർ. 7/14/ MIS I നന്തൻകോട്, തീയതി: 29/01/14 പരാമർശം : 1. ദേവസ്വം കമ്മീഷണറുടെ 10.12.2013, 8.1.2014 എന്നീ തീയതികളിലെ ആർ.ഒ.സി.13901/13/പി.ആർ നമ്പർ റിപ്പോർട്ടുകൾ.

2. ലാ ആഫീസറുടെ 26.11.2013-ലെ അഭിപ്രായം ഉത്തരവ് ഹരിപ്പാട് ഗ്രൂപ്പിലെ വലിയകുളങ്ങര ദേവസ്വത്തിലെ താന്ത്രികാവകാശം പൂർവി കമായി ഇരിങ്ങാലക്കുട കുണ്ടൂർ മല്ലിശ്ശേരി ഇല്ലത്തിനാണെന്ന് പതിവ് പുസ്‌തകം കൊണ്ട് കാണുന്നുവെന്നും ഇരിങ്ങാലക്കുട കുണ്ടൂർമന എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ടി ദേവസ്വത്തിലെ തന്ത്രം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചതെന്ന് വ്യക്തമല്ലെന്നും പൂർവിക തന്ത്രി കുടുംബം തന്ത്രത്തിന് എത്താതിരുന്നതിനാൽ കുറെക്കാലം തന്ത്രം ഇല്ലാത്ത അവസ്ഥയിലായിരുന്നുവെന്നും തുടർന്ന് 35 വർഷം മുൻപ് പ്ലാക്കൂടി ഇല്ലത്തു നിന്ന് തന്ത്രിയെ വരുത്തി തന്ത്രം നടത്തിവരുന്നുവെന്ന് ഹരിപ്പാട് അസിസ്റ്റന്റ് ദേവസ്വം 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 12 കമ്മീഷണറുടെ റിപ്പോർട്ട് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതായും മല്ലിശ്ശേരി കുടുംബത്തിന്റെ കുടുംബ മൂപ്പനായ ശ്രീ.കെ.കെ.ശങ്കരൻ നമ്പൂതിരി അനന്തരാവകാശിയായി ശ്രീ. കെ.കെ.കൃഷ്‌ണൻ നമ്പൂതിരിയെ നോമിനേറ്റ് ചെയ്‌തു കൊണ്ടുള്ള സമ്മതപത്രവും, ടിയാന്റെ മൂന്നാമത്തെ സഹോദരനാണ് ശ്രീ.കെ.കെ.കൃഷണൻ നമ്പൂതിരിയെന്ന് തെളിയിക്കുന്ന വില്ലേജ് ആഫീസറുടെ സാക്ഷ്യപത്രവും മറ്റ് രേഖകളും, കൂടാതെ പ്രസ്തുത വിഷയം സംബന്ധിച്ച് ലാ ആഫീസറുടെ അഭിപ്രായം ആരാഞ്ഞതിൽ കുടുംബമൂപ്പൻ നിർദ്ദേശിച്ച ശ്രീ.കെ.കെ.കൃഷ്‌ണൻ നമ്പൂതിരിയെ വലിയകുളങ്ങര ദേവസ്വം തന്ത്രിയായി നിയോഗിക്കുന്നതിൽ തടസ്സമില്ലെന്ന് പരാമർശം.2 ആയി അഭിപ്രായപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതായും, ദേവസ്വം കമ്മീഷണർ റിപ്പോർട്ട് ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. (പരാമർശം. 1) ദേവസ്വം കമ്മിഷണറുടെ റിപ്പോർപ്പിൻ്റെയും, ലാ ആഫീസറുടെ അഭിപ്രായത്തിന്റെയും അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ ഹരിപ്പാട് ഗ്രൂപ്പിലെ വലിയകുളങ്ങര ദേവസ്വത്തിലെ താന്ത്രികാവകാശം കുടുംബമൂപ്പൻ നിർദ്ദേശിച്ച ശ്രീ.കെ.കെ.കൃഷ്‌ണൻ നമ്പൂതിരിക്ക് നൽകുന്നതിന് അനുവദിച്ച് ബോർഡുത്തരവാകുന്നു.

തിരുവിതാംകൂർ ദേവസ്വം ബോർഡിനു വേണ്ടി "

27. On going through Ext.R5(b), the Devaprasnacharthu relied on by the respondents 4 and 5, the Thanthric functions are performed by the members of Plakkudi Illom. However, as per Ext. R5(b), the Devahitham is that there should be effective consultation and discussion between the members of the previous Thanthri family, the present Thanthri family (Plakkudi Illom) and the officials of the Board with respect to the Thanthriship of the temple and to take an appropriate decision. The astrologers further opined that if such a decision is taken, it would yield positive results as per the Ashtamangalaprasnam. 28. The principal submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that Ext.P9 order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without affording an opportunity of being heard. There is no dispute between the contesting parties as to the fact that the members of Plakkudi 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 13 Illom are now performing the Thanthric rights in the temple. In other words the custom followed by the temple for the past 35 years is that Thanthric rights are being performed by the members of the Palakkudi Illom. A custom which is followed for the past 31/2 decades continuously and uninterruptedly is having the force of law, unless it is contrary to any statute, rules or byelaws.

29. The Apex Court in Bhimashya v. Janabi2 made the following observation in paragraph 25 as follows:

25. A custom is a particular rule which has existed either actually or presumptively from time immemorial, and has obtained the force of law in a particular locality, although contrary to or not consistent with the general common law of the realm. A custom to be valid must have four essential attributes. First, it must be immemorial;

secondly, it must be reasonable; thirdly, it must have continued without interruption since its immemorial origin, and; fourthly, it must be certain in respect of its nature generally as well as in respect of the locality where it is alleged to obtain and the persons whom it is alleged to affect

30. In Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva3 the Apex Court held that Custom is an established practice at variance with the general law. A custom varying general law may be a general, local, tribal or family custom. A general custom includes a custom common to any considerable class of persons. A custom which is applicable to a locality, tribe, sect or a family is called a special custom. Custom is a rule, which in a particular family, a particular class, community, or in a particular district, has, owing to prolonged use, obtained the force of law. Custom has the effect of modifying 2 [(2006) 13 SCC 627] 3 [(2013) 4 SCC 97] 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 14 general personal law, but it does not override statutory law, unless the custom is expressly saved by it.Such custom must be ancient, uniform, certain, continuous and compulsory. No custom is valid if it is illegal, immoral, unreasonable or opposed to public policy. He who relies upon custom varying general law, must plead and prove it. Custom must be established by clear and unambiguous evidence.

31. We have carefully gone through Ext.P9 order of the Devaswom Board. It is stated in the order that the Thanthric rights of Valiyakulangara Devaswom are vested with Kundoor Mallissery Illom as per the Pathivu book. However, the said Mana relinquished the rights and failed to attend their duties as such.

32. The order would further show that there were no Thanthris in the temple for quite a long time. Thereafter, for the past 35 years, the Thanthric rights have been performed by the priests of Plakkudi Illom as per the report of the Assistant Commissioner. The order further states that Sri.K.K. Sankaran Namboothiri, the eldest member of Irinjalakuda Kundoor Mallisserry Illom, has nominated the 5th respondent as his successor by a letter of consent. The 5th respondent is the younger brother of Sri. Sankaran Namboothiri, as per the certificate produced by the Village Officer and other documents. It is further stated in the order that the Board sought the opinion of the Law Officer, who opined that the 5th respondent, Krishnan Namboothiri, may be appointed as the Thanthri of the temple. 33. On the basis of the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the opinion of the Law officer, the Thanthric right was entrusted to Sri. Krishnan 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 15 Namboothiri by Ext.P9 order.

34. In A.K Kraipak And Others v. Union Of India And Others4, the Apex Court observed in paragraph 20 as follows:

"20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Oftentimes it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry. As 4 1969 SCC 2 262 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 16 observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case."

35. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE5, the Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice are grounded in procedural fairness which ensures taking of correct decisions and procedural fairness is fundamentally an instrumental good, in the sense that procedure should be designed to ensure accurate or appropriate outcomes. In fact, procedural fairness is valuable in both instrumental and non-instrumental terms. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in any straight - jacket formula. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances.

36. In S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India6, the Apex Court observed as follows:

"21. The principles of natural justice are founded on three fundamental rules that ensure fairness in legal and administrative proceedings. Firstly, the Hearing Rule (audi alteram partem) which mandates that no person should be judged without being given a fair opportunity to present his case. Secondly, the Bias Rule (nemo judex 5 (2015) 8 SCC 519 6 (2025) 8 SCC 696 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 17 in causa sua) which asserts that no one should act as a judge in its own case, thereby safeguarding impartiality and preventing any form of bias. Lastly, the principle of Reasoned Decision, also known as Speaking Orders, requires every decision to be supported by valid and clearly stated reasons to promote transparency and accountability in the decision-making process."

37. On a perusal of Ext.P9 order, there is nothing to indicate that notice was issued to the petitioners and an opportunity of being heard was given to them. Even if Ext.R5(b) is considered genuine, the opinion expressed by the Astrologers is that a decision be taken by the Board as per the discussion between the members of both the family and the Devaswom officials and the said decision taken would yield good results and that is the Devahitham (desire of the Deity) of the temple.

38. On going through the records, it is clear that such an exercise was not carried out by the Board. The Secretary, by the impugned order, straightaway appointed the 5th respondent, Krishnan Namboothiri, as the Thanthri of the temple. It is also not even stated in the order that the persons presently holding the post have been removed. The Secretary is not justified, in our view, in passing such a cryptic order without adhering to the established principles of natural justice. Therefore, Ext.P9 order and the consequential order Ext.P12 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Board is directed to reconsider the matter after giving notice and affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. The Board may also consider the 2026:KER:21608 W.A.1021/2016 18 documents, if any, produced by the parties.

In the result, this Writ Appeal stands allowed.

i. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. ii. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider the matter afresh and take a decision in accordance with law.

iii. The Board shall issue notice to the affected parties and afford an opportunity of being heard to them.

iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within the outer limits of three months from the date of this judgment.

Sd/-

                                                  RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                                                           JUDGE



                                                        Sd/-
                                                        K. V. JAYAKUMAR
                                                               JUDGE
msp
                                                        2026:KER:21608
W.A.1021/2016                  19                    
      




                   APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1021 OF 2016

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1                  TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY
                            PETITIONER ADDRESS TO 3RD RESPONDENT
                            DATED 5.5.83
Annexure 2                  TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
                            APPELLANT TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.2.84
Annexure 3                  TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY 3RD
                            RESPONDENT TO THE APPELLANT DATED 13.2.84
Annexure 4                  TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S 48/2014
                            DATED 31.10.2017 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,
                            HARIPAD
Annexure 5                  TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                            STANDARD PADITHARAM DATED 05.07.1905

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court