K Narayanan Kutty vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K Narayanan Kutty vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2025

The petitioners, who are devotees of Lord Vadakkumnathan of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple, Thrissur, which is under the management of the 3rd respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Board to take immediate steps to account the income and expenditure of 'Aanayoottu' conducted in the year 2024 in Vadakkumnathan Temple, including the income generated from putting up advertisement boards, and submit the same before this Court, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State to repatriate the 4th respondent, who is holding the post of Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, to his parent department; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Board to act upon Ext.P1 complaint dated 04.07.2025 made by the 1st petitioner and Ext.P2 complaint dated 03.07.2025 made by the 2nd petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent City Police Commissioner, Thrissur to take action against putting up of WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:53160 advertisement boards in Vadakkumnathan Temple Ground.

2. On 10.07.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board pointed out that the 1st petitioner has already filed a complaint dated 13.05.2025 before the learned Ombudsman, on the very same subject, which has been numbered as Complaint No.178 of 2025, which is listed before the learned Ombudsman on 22.07.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment and accordingly, the writ petition was ordered to be listed today (17.07.2025).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 3 and 6.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner has already filed a complaint on the very same subject, i.e., Complaint No.178 of 2025, which is now listed before the learned Ombudsman on 22.07.2025.

5. The powers of the learned Ombudsman, as per the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, W.P.(C)No.19571 of 2007 and DBP No.1 of 2006 are as follows;

WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:53160 "Ombudsman will broadly discharge the following functions:

1. Ombudsman will oversee the audits undertaken by the auditors appointed by the High Court and also would examine the accounts of the Board as and when found necessary. Ombudsman will see that all the pending audits in respect of the Boards be completed at the earliest and if necessary by engaging qualified and reputed Chartered Accountants after obtaining permission from his court and will submit report to this court periodically.

2. Ombudsman will submit periodical reports to the High Court with regard to all cases of irregular, illegal and improper expenditure or the acts of failure to recover moneys and other properties due to the Boards or to the Institutions under their management or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof caused by neglect or misconduct.

3. Ombudsman is authorised to investigate all complaints received from the devotees, temple employees, members of the Board or on a reference by the High Court or from the Government or that come to his notice with regard to misappropriation, maladministration, corruption etc. in the functioning of the Board or the temples or the Institutions under the management and administration of the Boards and submit report to this court periodically.

4. Ombudsman would also take effective steps to recover properties, movable and immovable, of various temples which have been encroached upon illegally by third parties and to take steps to see that the opening, counting and remitting of collection be made in a transparent manner and curb all loopholes of misutilisation and diversion of temple funds.

5. Ombudsman also would take effective steps to expedite cases pending before various courts taking into account the best interest of the temples and its properties and see that the cases are properly and effectively conducted so as to safeguard the interest of the temples and submit periodical reports to this court.

WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:53160

6. Ombudsman would take effective steps to see that master plan for Sabarimala is properly implemented and would take steps to book all cases of misappropriation, maladministration and corruption pertaining to group of temples of Sabarimala and submit periodical reports before this Court.

7. Ombudsman will take every endeavour to see that all ancient customs, practices and usage be preserved taking into consideration of the social change. Rare paintings, carvings, etc. be preserved and protected in consultation with Archaeological Survey of India.

8. Ombudsman will take effective steps to improve the working conditions of the various educational institutions under the respective Boards and improve the quality and standard of education of those institutions.

9. Ombudsman would take effective steps to see that temples under the management of the Boards be computerised early and introduce modern counting processes of Kanikka Vanchi's wherever necessary so that corruption and misappropriation of money could be nipped in the bud."

6. In Kamalam v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2014 (4) KLT 545] after quoting the functions of the learned Ombudsman as per Clause (3) of the order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, W.P.(C)No.19571 of 2007 and DBP No.1 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court held that the mechanism of the learned Ombudsman was intended to protect public interest and not for resolving the personal grievances of the employees of the Boards and Temples. Necessarily, the complaints directed to be investigated by the learned Ombudsman are complaints filed with WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:53160 regard to misappropriation, maladministration, corruption, etc. in the functioning of Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board or the temples or the institution under its management and administration. In other words, only complaints involving an element of public interest were required to be gone into by the learned Ombudsman and to that effect the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected cases is clarified. Paragraph 3 of that decision reads thus;

"3. A committee appointed earlier by this Court to review the working of the Devaswom Boards constituted under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 had reported to this Court the various instances of mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, corruption etc, in the Devaswom Boards and also in the Temples under the Boards. While considering the recommendations of the said committee, this Court noticed that the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 has not invested any powers on the State Government over the affairs of the Devaswom Boards constituted for management of the temples and that the legislature in its wisdom has only conferred powers on this Court to supervise the functioning of the Boards and its officers and also to supervise the audit of the accounts of the Boards. It was also noticed that as per the provisions of the said Act, the auditors of the Boards have to specify in the reports all cases of irregularities, illegal or improper expenditure or failure to recover money or other properties due to the Board or to the institutions under the management or loss or waste of money or other properties caused by neglect or mistakes and it is for this WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:53160 court to initiate remedial actions thereof. It was further noticed that the High Court as parens patriae has a duty to protect the temple properties and curb corruption, mismanagement and maladministration in the affairs of the temples and institutions under the control of the Devaswom Boards. It is in the said circumstances, this Court felt that an Ombudsman with a full- fledged system would be of considerable help to the High Court in the discharge of its duties and accordingly, appointed the Ombudsman. In other words, the purpose of appointment of the Ombudsman was to enable this court to discharge its duties under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and as parens patriae over the affairs of the Temples and its properties. The broad functions of the Ombudsman as prescribed in the order would reinforce the said conclusion of ours. The function of the Ombudsman as regards the complaints received from the devotees, temple employees, members of the Board etc. as prescribed in the order reads thus:

"Ombudsman is authorised to investigate all complaints received from the devotees, temple employees, members of the Board or on a reference by the High Court or from the Government or that come to his notice with regard to misappropriation, maladministration, corruption, etc. in the functioning of the Board or the temples or the institutions under the management and administration of the Boards and submit a report to this court periodically"

(underline supplied) It is thus evident that the mechanism of the Ombudsman was intended to protect public interest and not for resolving the personal grievances of the employees of the Boards and Temples. Necessarily, the complaints directed to be investigated by the Ombudsman are complaints filed with regard to misappropriation, WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:53160 maladministration, corruption etc. in the functioning of the Board or the temples or the institutions under the management and administration of the Boards. In other words, only complaints involving an element of public interest were required to be gone into by the Ombudsman and to that extent the order of this court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P No.3821 of 1990 and connected cases is clarified."

7. By the order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, DBP No.1 of 2015 and DBP No.107 of 2015 - Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, Trivandrum v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Trivandrum - Clause 9A has been added to the order dated 27.11.2017. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that decision read thus;

"3. We notice that through order dated 20.10.2014 in DBP No.33 of 2014 and connections, this Court had interpreted clause 3 among the duties and functions enumerated in the order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connections to point out that the personal grievances of employees of TDB and CDB and the temples do not come within the enumerated duties of the learned Ombudsman and the complaints ought to be those involving any element of public interest. The order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connections was also thus clarified by this Court. We agree with the view in that order that there is no provision among the functions enumerated in the order dated 27.11.2007 as of now, touching all such matters.

4. In the conspectus of the earlier orders in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, we have bestowed our anxious consideration to the need for consideration of complaints from employees, which are in the form of personal grievances. They may relate to employees of TDB and CDB or temples under them. Grievances may be in WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:53160 relation to disciplinary action or such other matters which may be in the realm of statutory regulations and service rules. At the same time, there may be personal grievances of failure or delay to disburse the undisputed or indisputable outstandings to the employees, or purely administrative matters like transfer, and such other matters which are only to be treated as not amounting to interference with any statutory power of either the TDB or CDB in terms of the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, we are of the view that, in the fitness of things, it is appropriate to augment the duties, responsibilities and the functions of the Ombudsman by including among them the personal grievances of employees of TDB and CDB and the temples thereunder, which would not turn adversarial on the basis of the statutory provisions, including Acts, Rules, Regulations etc. This may include matters relating to non-disbursal of admitted or indisputable amounts towards salaries and other drawals and also dues to retired personnel. All such matters can be considered by the Ombudsman. It is also ordered, and it is directed that the decisions of the Ombudsman on such matters shall be complied with by the TDB and the CDB. In the event of any objection, that may be placed before the Ombudsman, who will then place a report to this Court. In all other matters, the action taken, and compliance need be shown only in the periodical reports of the Ombudsman.

5. In the light of what are stated above, we modify order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and add the following after clause 9 in that order:

"9A: The Ombudsman will consider such individual grievance of employees of the TDB and the CDB and the temples thereunder which would not turn adversarial on the basis of the statutory provisions, including Acts, Rules, Regulations etc. This may include matters relating WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:53160 to non-disbursal of admitted or indisputable amounts, salaries and other drawals and such other matters, including dues to retired personnel. Such matters and the action taken, and compliance thereof need be shown only in the periodical reports of the Ombudsman. If any objection is raised by the TDB or the CDB to the recommendations of the Ombudsman on such matters, that may be placed before the Ombudsman who will then place a report to this Court with his views thereon. All such matters can be considered by the Ombudsman. Ombudsman will also entertain personal grievances in administrative matters not amounting to disciplinary proceedings so that the parties could be appropriately led to resolve such disputes before the Ombudsman."

8. DBP No.77 of 2022 was registered based on Report No.34 of 2022 of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards in Complaint No.79 of 2022. The complainant, who is the Melsanthi of Chittadeeswaran Devaswom in Rameswaram Sub Group under the Travancore Devaswom Board, filed a complaint dated 20.06.2022 before the learned Ombudsman, wherein it is stated that he has 32 years of service in the Board and he is due to retire in 2023. He opted for the post of Melshanti Thrikkadavoor Devaswom and Ashramam Devaswom in the general transfer of 2022. Since he has got only less than one year service before retirement, he is entitled to be transferred to the place of choice near his residence. However, he was retained WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:53160 in Chittadeewaram Temple as Melshanti. In the complaint he refers Clause (14) of the transfer norms. In the complaint, it is alleged that the person who has been transferred to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom has a long period of service remaining, whereas the complainant has got only less than one year of service. The request of the complainant was that he may be accommodated as Melshanti, either at Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Ashramam Devaswom. DBP No.77 of 2022 was disposed of by the order dated 20.01.2023 - C.K Madhusoodanan Namboodiri v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board and another [2023:KER:16757] - wherein it was held that the grievance of complainant, who is an employee of Travancore Devaswom Board, regarding non-consideration of his claim for transfer to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Asramam Devaswom cannot be entertained by the learned Ombudsman under Clause 9A added to the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters, vide the order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters. The legality or otherwise of an order of transfer by the competent authority or that of an order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be decided by the learned Ombudsman, based on a complaint made WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:53160 by a Devaswom employee. Paragraph 10 of the order dated 20.01.2023 in DBP No.77 of 2022 reads thus;

"10. In the instant case the grievance of the complainant is that his claim for the post of Melshanti, either at Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or at Asramam Devaswom, in terms of Clause (14) of transfer norms, since he got only less than one year service of retirement, is overlooked and the person who has been transferred to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom has a long period of service remaining. The norms for transfer of temple employees under Travancore Devaswom Board is placed before the learned Ombudsman along with the report dated 03.10.2022 of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner (Administration). Challenging non-consideration of the claim of the complainant for a posting to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Asramam Devaswom, he filed appeal before the Devaswom Commissioner, which ended in dismissal by the order dated 09.06.2022, on the ground that in the above two places opted by the complainant senior hands were considered for posting. If the complainant is having any grievance regarding non- consideration of his claim for transfer to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Asramam Devaswom, he has to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority before the appropriate forum, with the rival claimants in the party array. Such a grievance cannot be entertained by the learned Ombudsman under Clause 9A added to the order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters, vide order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters. The legality or otherwise of an order of transfer passed by the competent authority or that of the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be decided by the learned Ombudsman, based on a complaint made by a Devaswom employee. Therefore, it is for the complainant to challenge the order of the appellate authority before the appropriate forum."

9. In the order dated 04.04.2023 in DBP No.21 of 2023 -

WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:53160 Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:29631]

- this Court held that in view of the order of this Court dated 20.01.2023 in DBP No.77 of 2022, the individual grievances of the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board and also that of the employees in the temples under its management regarding non-consideration of their claim for transfer cannot be entertained by the learned Ombudsman under Clause 9A added to the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters, vide the order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters. The grievance of such employees in relation to their service matters, which involves consideration of rival claims, interpretation of the provisions under the respective statutes, etc. have to be raised in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the grievances of the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board and also that of the employees in the temples under its management cannot be the subject matter in a complaint filed before the learned Ombudsman or a complaint forwarded to the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters.

10. In the order dated 04.04.2023 in DBP No.21 of 2023 -

WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:53160 Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:29631]

- this Court held that, on the complaints received by the learned Ombudsman from a devotee or Temple Advisory Committee of temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board or Cochin Devaswom Board, alleging maladministration, misappropriation, corruption, etc. in such temples or on the complaints received alleging maladministration, misappropriation, corruption, etc. in the institutions under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board or Cochin Devaswom Board, the report of the learned Ombudsman shall be placed before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters for appropriate orders.

11. The issue raised in this writ petition with reference to Ext.P17 photographs of placing advertisement boards in Vadakkumnathan Temple ground in connection with Aanayoottu is the subject matter in DBA No.6 of 2025 pending before this Court, in which this Court has passed a detailed order dated 16.07.2025.

12. When a devotee has already moved the learned Ombudsman with a complaint, he cannot approach this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, during the pendency of that complaint, in respect of the very same WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:53160 subject matter.

13. In the instant case, the fact that the complaint made by the 1st petitioner on the very same subject matter is pending before the learned Ombudsman as Complaint No.178 of 2025 has not been disclosed in the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioners approaching this Court in this writ petition, without disclosing the said fact would amount to suppression of material facts from the notice of this Court.

14. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.

15. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:53160 or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.

16. In Prestige Lights Limited the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed; without prejudice to the right of the 1st petitioner to prosecute Complaint No.178 of 2025 pending before the learned WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:53160 Ombudsman and also without prejudice to the right of the 2 nd petitioner to move the learned Ombudsman with a proper complaint, pointing out any maladministration in the Cochin Devaswom Board or Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

 WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025          19               2025:KER:53160


                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25245/2025

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1           A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 04.07.2025
                     GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
                     RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2           A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 03.07.2025
                     GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
                     RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3           A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 24.01.2025
                     ISSUED BY M/S CLASSIC APPLIANCES TO THE
                     COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD WITH READABLE COPY
Exhibit P4           A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 03.02.2025
                     ISSUED BY M/S CLASSIC APPLIANCES TO THE
                     COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD WITH A READABLE COPY
Exhibit P5           A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
                     BEARING NO.M5-13794/24 DATED 12.02.2025
Exhibit P6           A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 03.02.2025
                     ISSUED BY M/S CLASSIC APPLIANCES TO THE
                     COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
Exhibit P7           A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M5-13794/24 OF THE
                     4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2025
Exhibit P8           A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 27.01.2025
                     ISSUED BY LEGA BAGS AND CURTAINS TO THE 3RD
                     RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9           A TRUE COPY OF ORDER M5-13794/24 OF THE 4TH
                     RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025
Exhibit P10          A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 28.01.2025
                     ISSUED BY CHOROTTIL EXIDE SHOPPE, THRISSUR
                     TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11          A TRUE COPY OF ORDER M5-13794/24 OF THE 4TH
                     RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025
Exhibit P12          A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 27.01.2025

ISSUED BY UNITED ENTERPRISES, THRISSUR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER M5-13794/24 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M5-1604/20 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2024 Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.1A/CDB/10/2025 UNDER RTI ACT,2005 DATED 15.04.2025 GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (MARAMATH) TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION DATED 09.08.2024 GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION WP(C) NO. 25245 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:53160 ACT, 2005 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING ADVERTISEMENT BOARDS INSTALLED IN VADAKKUMNATHAN TEMPLE GROUND DATED 03.07.2025 Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 18.08.2023 IN CON.CASE(C) NO.1042/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court