Akshay Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Akshay Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2025

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), Thaliparambu, Kannur District, has filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari [sic: writ of mandamus] commanding the District Judge, Thalassery to submit a report before this Court in petition O.M.No.P.C.No.1772/2024 dated 22.02.2024 and to take stringent action on the said report, as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2019) 18 SCC 1], without any delay; an order directing the present Temple Committee of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu) to hand over all responsibilities of the temple to the Ooralans (hereditary trustees of the temple), including the books of accounts and all details of the administration and permit them to discharge all their duties without any hitch and hindrance; a declaration that the Parappool Bhagavathi Temple is a religious institution and direct the respondents to frame a scheme for the administration of Parappool Kavu under the leadership of 4 Ooralan families (hereditary trustees of the W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:17052 temple); and direct the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to conduct the audit of accounts of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple for the last 13 years.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner, who is a devotee of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), has filed this writ petition due to the dilapidated condition of the temple and its properties on account of inaction on the part of respondents 4 and 5, who are presently the Secretary and President, respectively, of Parappool Kavu Committee. Respondents 6 to 9 belong to four Ooralan families of the temple. The property of the temple is comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.70 and 71 of Pattuvam Village, i.e., 4.02 Acres in Re.Sy.No.70 and 7.10 Acres in Re.Sy.No.71 of Pattuvam Village. The temple pond, having an extent of 50 cents, is at Ariyil. According to the petitioner, the annual income of the temple is around Rs.10 Lakhs, by way of vazhipadu and donations from the devotees. Though the temple generates huge income, the Kavu and its premises are in a dilapidated condition due to the inaction on the part of Parappool Kavu Committee. The Kavu building Tharavadu (Valiyaveedu) is not maintained properly by the Kavu Committee. Moreover, the income and expenditure of W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:17052 the Kavu were not audited for the last 13 years. The Kavu Committee is not bothered about the difficulties faced by the devotees, the deficiencies in the management, appropriate utilisation of the offerings and the protection of the assets of the Kavu. Moreover, the election to the committee is not being conducted democratically and the minutes are not maintained properly. The Kavu Committee is not consulting the four Ooralan families, namely, Karoth Tharavadu, Arathingal Tharavadu, Koovodan Tharavadu and Neelankol Tharavadu, in the day-to- day administration of the temple. Due to the dilapidated condition of the Kavu, the Ooralans have expressed their interest in forming a committee to protect the interest of the Kavu and the devotees. The petitioner caused to issue Ext.P1 lawyer notice dated 23.12.2024 to the President and Secretary of Parappool Kavu Committee. On receipt of Ext.P1 lawyer notice, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 reply notice dated 21.01.2025. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated nil before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Kozhikode, for a declaration that Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu) is a religious institution and the accounts of W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:17052 the temple have to be subjected to audit and also for renovation of Parappool Kavu and the Tharavadu (Valiyaveedu).

3. On 13.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to address arguments on the maintainability of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

4. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking an order to amend the writ petition by incorporating Ground No.E and to substitute the first relief sought for in this writ petition as a writ of mandamus commanding the District Judge, Thalassery to forward a detailed report to this Court in connection with petition dated 22.02.2024 filed by one Vivek V.V., which was numbered as O.M.No.P.C.No.1772/2024, without any delay and take appropriate action on that report as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2019) 18 SCC 1]. A copy of the petition dated nil submitted by Vivek V.V. is marked as Ext.P4 in I.A.No.1 of 2025. We notice that Ext.P3 representation dated nil made by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board is a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P4 petition W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:17052 dated nil made by Vivek V.V. before the District Judge, Thalassery.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is a devotee of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by the delay on the part of the District Judge, Thalassery in forwarding the report before this Court in the petition dated 22.02.2024 made by one Vivek V.V., which is one submitted before the District Judge in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2019) 18 SCC 1], in which the Apex Court noticed the directions issued in its earlier order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018.

7. In Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 789 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:17052 that the issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is a need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or assign the issue/matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction, examine above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as become necessary, having regard to the individual fact situation. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 20 of the order dated W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:17052 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] read thus;

"10. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilization of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and there is need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments.

11. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a Court also to issue directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, we direct that if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/matter to any other Court under his/her jurisdiction examine the above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as become necessary, having regard to the individual fact situation.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

20. We may sum up our directions in today's orders, in addition to the orders dated 08.06.2018, as follows; W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:17052

i) Report of the District Judge dated 26.6.2018 is accepted in principle and action to be taken by the temple administration.

ii) District Judge, Puri may send further report, if any by 31.8.2018, preferably by e-mail.

iii) The State Government may submit report of the Committee constituted by it on or before 31.8.2018.

iv) The Central Government may constitute its Committee, as already directed, within two weeks from today and place its interim report on record of this Court on or before 31.8.2018.

         v)     Copy of the Report of the District Judge may be
                placed   on   the   websites   of   the      temple

management, Ministry of Culture and website of the Supreme Court for two weeks.

vi) The directions in the order dated 8.6.2018 may be complied with by all concerned and non-

compliance thereof may be reported to this Court for appropriate action if necessary.

vii) The temple management may consider, subject to regulatory measures, with regard to dress code, giving of an appropriate declaration or compliance with other directions, permitting every visitor irrespective of his faith, to offer respects and to make offerings to the deity.

viii) We have noted that Hinduism does not eliminate any other belief and is eternal faith and wisdom and inspiration of centuries, as noted in earlier judgments of this Court.

W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:17052

ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protections of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation.

x) Learned amicus is at liberty to engage with all stakeholders and to give suggestions for bringing about improvements and also to give a report to this Court. However, this will not stand in the way of the Committee of the State Government, Committee of the Central Government or any District Judge considering matters in terms of above directions." (underline supplied)

8. In paragraph 11 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018- Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] the Apex Court referred to the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with public charities.

W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:17052

9. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with public charities. In view of the provisions contained in sub- section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situated to obtain a decree of any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1). Clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 read thus;

       (a)     removing any trustee;
       (b)     appointing a new trustee;
       (c)     vesting any property in a trustee;
       (cc)    directing a trustee who has been removed or a

person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;

       (d)     directing accounts and inquiries;
 W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025
                                       13




                                                              2025:KER:17052

       (e)     declaring what proportion of the trust property or of

the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(f) authoriszing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;

       (g)     settling a scheme; or
       (h)     granting such further or other relief as the nature of
               the case may require.

10. Sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the Code provides that, save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub- section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with the provisions of that sub-section.

11. As per sub-section (3) of Section 92, the court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cy press in one or more of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). Clauses (a) to

(e) of sub-section (3) read thus;

(a) where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:17052 in part,

(i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or

(ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust; or

(b) where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust; or

(c) where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes; or

(d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or

(e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down,

(i) been adequately provided for by other means, or

(ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community, of

(iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable, or

(iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:17052 spirit of the trust.

12. In Madappa v. M.N. Mahanthadevaru [AIR 1966 SC 878] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that sub- section (1) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for two classes of cases, namely, (i) where there is a breach of trust in a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, and (ii) where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. The reliefs to be sought in a suit under sub-section (1) of Section 92 are indicated in that Section and include removal of any trustee, the appointment of a new trustee, vesting of any property in a trustee, directing a removed trustee or person who has ceased to be a trustee to deliver possession of trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property, directing accounts and enquiries, declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorisation of the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged, or settlement of a scheme. The nature of these reliefs will show that a suit under Section 92 may be filed when there is a breach of trust or when the administration W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:17052 of the trust generally requires improvement.

13. In Madappa [AIR 1966 SC 878] the Constitution Bench held that the main purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of Code is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. That is why it provides that suits under that section can only be filed either by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the *[consent in writing of the Advocate General]. The object is that before the Advocate General files a suit or gives his consent for filing a suit, he would satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case either of breach of trust or of the necessity for obtaining directions of the Court. [*Substituted as 'leave of the Court' by Act 104 of 1974]

14. In R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities [(1989) Supp.2 SCC 356] the Apex Court held that a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a suit of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights.

15. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. v. State of W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:17052 Kerala [2024 (2) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, noticed that the directions issued by the Apex Court in clauses (i) to

(viii) and (x) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] are in respect of the issue of public importance highlighted in that writ petition relating to the difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation by the Sevaks of the temple. Before the Apex Court, it was pointed out that the environment of the surroundings is not hygienic, as it ought to be, and there are encroachments. There are deficiencies in the management of the shrine and the rituals are commercialised. See: Para 1 of the order dated 08.06.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 602]. It is in that context that the Apex Court issued a general direction in clause (ix) of para 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees of all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines, on account of harassment or exploitation by those in management, unhygienic surroundings, encroachments, W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:17052 deficiencies in management, etc. The general direction contained in clause (ix) of para 20 is to the effect that difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protection of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation.

16. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1], the Division Bench held that the petition that can be moved by a devotee in terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the aforesaid order dated 05.07.2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] of the Apex Court is not one invoking the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since that provision of the Code, which deals with public charities, can be invoked only in the manner provided in sub-section (1) of Section 92, to obtain a decree of any of the W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:17052 reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. In terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 of the Apex Court, which is one issued for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees on account of deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings or protection of assets of shrines, a devotee can approach the District Judge having jurisdiction, with a petition pointing out the difficulties faced by him on account of any such matters, in which event the District Judge may examine such matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned, for consideration of that report in the judicial side, for issuing any direction as may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact situation.

17. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1], on the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that in Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:17052 in W.P.(C)No.29277 of 2023, before the District Judge, Ernakulam, he is requesting the District Judge to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action as per the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667], and take back the administration of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No.893 and appoint an appropriate authority to administer the affairs of that temple. The averments in that writ petition showed that claiming repossession of the management of the temple, alleging violation of the provisions under Ext.P1 agreement dated 24.04.1956, the petitioner's father filed O.S.No.231 of 1981, before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavur, for cancellation of that agreement, which was dismissed by default by Ext.P4 judgment dated 06.11.1984. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the issue in respect of the management of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 filed before the District Judge, Ernakulam, is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018. Similarly, in W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:17052 Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29370 of 2023, namely, Pariyarathappan Kshethra Chaithanyarjjava Paripalana Sabha, before the District Judge, Thalaserry, the petitioner is requesting the District Judge to conduct an enquiry into the alleged encroachment of the property of the minor deity of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple, having an extent of 5.08 Ares in Kolari Village, covered by Ext.P1 settlement register. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 to 9 or their predecessors are not Ooralans of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple. However, the name of the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9 are recorded as owners of that property, which has been transferred in their name, in the year 1969, by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Madras Land Reforms Act. The averments in the writ petition showed that in O.S.No.450 of 1999 filed by the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, claiming to be the Ooralans of the temple, seeking mandatory injunction directing the 5th respondent Sree Subrahmanya Kshethra Seva Samithi to handover them the management, administration and possession of the petition schedule property, i.e., the temple and its pond, the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba granted a decree in their favour, as W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:17052 evident from Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.09.2009, which was confirmed by the Sub Court, Thalassery in Ext.P4 judgment dated 20.10.2016 in A.S.No.148 of 2009, which was under

challenge in RSA No.678 of 2017 and the said RSA was dismissed as not pressed vide judgment dated 23.02.2022. The issue raised in Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made before the District Judge, Kannur is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018.

Therefore, the Division Bench held that the relief sought for in both the writ petitions seeking an order directing the concerned District Judge to consider the petition made for conducting enquiry into the affairs of the respective temples, which is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause

(ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018, is not legally maintainable.

18. In Pramesh V. v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:49610] - judgment dated 23.05.2023 in W.P.(C) No.7033 of 2022 - a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:17052 among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with a writ petition, in which the grievance of the petitioner was that respondents 5 and 6 therein and others have encroached upon the property of Kottayil Bhagavathy Temple having an extent of 2.35 Acres in Sy.No. 163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village and demolished the temple situated therein, in spite of the complaint filed by the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. The petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State of Kerala and the 2nd respondent District Collector, Palakkad to protect the land of the minor deity of Bhagavathy Temple having an extent of 2.35 Acres in Sy.No.163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village and maintain the same by evicting all the encroachers, including respondents 5 and 6, and take appropriate steps to secure the said property by protecting it from encroachers and to take adequate steps to ensure that the said property is exclusively used for temple purposes alone, in the light of the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]; and an order directing the District Judge, Palakkad to consider Ext.P9 petition dated 24.02.2022, in terms of the directions W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:17052 contained in the said order of the Apex Court.

19. In Pramesh V. [2023:KER:49610] the Division Bench held that when the dispute relating to the property of Kottayil Bhagavathi Temple is pending before the competent civil court, i.e., the Munsiff Court, Mannarkkad, in O.S.No.94 of 2017 filed by one Krishnan, a devotee of the said temple, in which the alleged encroachers are arrayed as the defendants, the petitioner, who is another devotee of the said temple, cannot submit a petition like Ext.P9 before the 3rd respondent District Judge, Palakkad, relying on the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667], to conduct an enquiry into the alleged encroachment of the property of the minor deity by the defendants in that suit, (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) and file a report before this Court, during the pendency of that suit. For the aforesaid reason, the Division Bench dismissed W.P.(C)No.7033 of 2022 as not maintainable, without expressing anything on the rival contentions of the parties.

20. In Ravi Kidavu and another v. State of Kerala and others [2024:KER:62496] - judgment dated 14.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.4748 of 2024 - another decision relied on by the W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:17052 learned counsel for the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with a writ petition filed by a senior member of Kavutheri Chamboli Tharavadu, which owned Naduvathur Shiva Temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, along with a devotee of that temple, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 report dated 31.07.2023 of the District Judge, Kozhikode, in O.P.No.240 of 2022, which is one filed by a devotee of that temple, in the light of the directions contained in the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]; a declaration that in view of the well settled position in law that the interest of the minor deity should be protected by preventing from encroaching or losing the Devaswom properties, the finding of the District Judge, Kozhikode in Ext.P5 report is not correct, which requires re- adjudication by way of ordering further enquiry in the matter; and a writ of mandamus commanding the District Judge, Kozhikode to file fresh and detailed report in the matter, after conducting fresh enquiry de novo in detail in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] and the decision of this Court in Ganapathi W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:17052 Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1].

21. In Ravi Kidavu [2024:KER:62496] the Division Bench noticed that after conducting an enquiry in terms of the directions contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667], the District Judge, Kozhikode forwarded Ext.P5 report dated 31.07.2023 in O.P.No.240 of 2022, based on which a writ petition has already been registered suo motu, which is now pending before this Court as W.P.(C)No.38746 of 2023. The question as to whether Ext.P5 report of the District Judge, Kozhikode has to be accepted or any action has to be taken in terms of the findings/observations in that report are matters which require consideration in that writ petition. Therefore, the Division Bench held that, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against Ext.P5 report dated 31.07.2023 of the District Judge, Kozhikode. In case any person is having grievance in respect of the findings or observations contained in such a report of the District Judge, it is for them to get themselves impleaded as respondents in the writ petition registered suo motu and file an affidavit raising appropriate legal and factual contentions. Therefore, the W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 27 2025:KER:17052 Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents in W.P.(C)No.38746 of 2023 and file an affidavit raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.

22. In the instant case, the averments in the writ petition and that contained in Ext.P3 representation dated nil made by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Kozhikode, which is a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P4 petition dated nil made by one Vivek V.V. before the District Judge, Thalassery, would show that there is a dispute between Parappool Kavu Committee, in which respondents 4 and 5 herein are its Secretary and President, respectively, and the members of the Ooralan families of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu). In the writ petition, it is stated that respondents 6 to 9 belong to four Ooralan families of the temple and that Parappool Kavu Committee is not consulting the Ooralan families in the day-to-day administration of the temple. Further, election to Parappool Kavu Committee is not being conducted democratically and the minutes are not maintained properly. The income and expenditure of the Kavu are not W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 28 2025:KER:17052 audited properly. Due to the dilapidated condition of Parappool Kavu, the Ooralans have expressed their interest in forming a committee to protect the interest of the Kavu and the devotees.

23. In Ext.P2 reply notice to Ext.P1 lawyer notice, it is stated that there are only three Ooralan families for Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu). The members from the Ooralan families are in Parappool Kavu Committee. The said committee consults with the members of the Ooralan families in the affairs relating to the temple and the members of the Ooralan families participate in all rituals and ceremonies in the temple. The minutes and accounts are maintained properly, and the accounts are passed every year in the general body convened after the Karthika festival in Vrishchikam. The election to the committee is also being conducted properly.

24. In Ext.P2 reply notice, it is pointed out that with the very same allegations contained in Ext.P1 lawyer notice dated 23.12.2024, one Nisanth K.K. submitted a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, with a request for the assumption of direct administration of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu) by the Malabar Devaswom Board. In the said petition, the Secretary and President of W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 29 2025:KER:17052 Parappool Kavu Committee are arrayed as opposite parties. In addition to that, with the very same allegations contained in Ext.P1 lawyer notice, one Vivek V.V. has also filed a petition before the District Judge, Thalassery for auditing the accounts of Parappool Kavu and to renovate Parappool Kavu and the Tharavadu (Valiyaveedu). Since no orders could be obtained in those petitions, the petitioner caused Ext.P1 lawyer notice through his lawyer, which also contains the very same allegations.

25. As held by this Court in Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1], the petition that can be moved by a devotee in terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - is not one invoking the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since that provision of the Code, which deals with public charities, can be invoked only in the manner provided in sub-section (1) of Section 92, to obtain a decree of any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub- section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 30 2025:KER:17052 a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust.

26. As held by this Court in Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. [2024 (2) KHC 1], in terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - which is one issued for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees on account of deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings or protection of assets of shrines, a devotee can approach the District Judge having jurisdiction, with a petition pointing out the difficulties faced by him on account of any such matters, in which event the District Judge may examine such matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned, for consideration of that report in the judicial side, for issuing any direction as may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact situation.

27. Therefore, the issue raised in Ext.P3 representation dated nil made by the petitioner before the Deputy W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 31 2025:KER:17052 Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P4 petition dated nil made by one Vivek V.V. before the District Judge, Thalassery relating to the dispute between Parappool Kavu Committee, in which respondents 4 and 5 herein are its Secretary and President, respectively, and the members of the Ooralan families of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667].

28. The question as to whether Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), Thaliparambu is a 'religious institution', as defined in clause (15) of Section 6 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, has to be decided by invoking the statutory remedy provided under clause (a) of Section 57 of the said Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner on the said dispute shall be subject to the right of suit or appeal provided under Sections 61 and 62 of the said Act. Similarly, the question as to whether a scheme has to be framed for proper administration of a temple, which is W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 32 2025:KER:17052 a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of Section 6 of the Act has to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, in a proceedings initiated under Section 58. The question as to whether a temple is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of Section 6 of the said Act or whether a scheme has to be framed for proper administration of a temple, which is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of Section 6, is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. Such reliefs cannot also be sought for in a writ petition filed before this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MIN W.P.(C)NO.5881 OF 2025 33 2025:KER:17052 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5881/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 23.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 21.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE THROUGH THEIR LEGAL CONSULTANT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY MR VIVEK V V BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, KANNUR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court