Vijayan T @ Thankaraj vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 March, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vijayan T @ Thankaraj vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 March, 2025

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Major Vellayani Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyatinkara Group and the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer of Vellayani Devaswom to give him an opportunity for making Pachappanthal and also allow him to do the traditional activities in which he was involved in the said temple, such as preparing and carrying 'Theevetti', etc. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyatinkara Group and the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer of Vellayani Devaswom to consider his representations, i.e., Exts.P2 and P3 dated 03.02.2025 and 17.03.2025, made before respondents 3 and 4 and grant permission for making Pachappanthal.

2. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner submitted representation before the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer, Vellayani Devaswom for permitting him to make 3 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 Pachappanthal for Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam of 1200ME (2025), from 26.03.2025 to 01.04.2025, based on Ext.P1 notice, since he is experienced in making Pachappanthal and Pattuvirikkal for the last more than 15 years, and his grandfather Govindan Asan also used to make Pachapanthal in the past. The 4th respondent Sub Group Officer verbally gave an assurance and believing the same, the petitioner brought thatched coconut leaves and other materials for making Pachapanthal. However, on 17.03.2025, the Sub Group Officer informed the petitioner that another person had been considered for making Pachappanthal.

3. On 27.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, it was ordered to be listed today for consideration.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4.

5. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and 4 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 unincorporated Devaswoms shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Section 15A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely,

(i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage.

6. Section 31A of the Act deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per subsection (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name 'Temple Advisory Committee' (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub- 5 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025

2025:KER:26879 section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed the Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board, with has been approved by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No.153 of 2009.

7. Clause (2) of the Rules deals with objectives of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per Clause (2) of the Rules, one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department.

8. Clause (3) of the Rules deals with membership. Clause (3) of the Rules makes it explicitly clear that the 6 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 membership in 'registered mandalam' is mainly for the devotees who are residing within a distance of 5kms from the temple, who are regular worshipers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to

(iv) of Clause (3) of the Rules deal with class of persons who are entitled to get membership.

9. In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee and another v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (2) KHC 290], this Court held that, in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple for the devotees. Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Vellayani Devaswom and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who 7 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage.

10. In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee [2023 (2) KHC 290], a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party held that, according to Oxford Dictionary, 'worshipper' is a person who shows reverence and adoration for a deity. Right to worship is a civil right, of course in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in each temple. A worshipper or a devotee has no legal right to insist that saffron/orange coloured decorative materials alone are used for festivals in a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Similarly, the District Administration or the Police cannot insist that only 'politically neutral' coloured decorative materials are used for temple festivals. Politics has no role to play in the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and festivals in temples. The role of a Temple Advisory Committee in a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board is to render necessary 8 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and the conduct of festivals according to the usage of that temple.

11. In Rajalakshmi v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC 492], a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, the Court was dealing with a case in which the petitioner, who is the ward member of Ward No.15 of Kuzhithalachal, Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat in Vellayani, filed the writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.02.2023 of the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board to include Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple. In the writ petition, it was alleged that, though the Kuzhithalachlal and Kalluvila are at a distance of 800m from the Kalliyoor Dikkubali Thara, the Devaswom Commissioner issued the order dated 24.02.2023 removing the said wards from the Dikkubali Nirapara list of Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, stating that those are outside the radius of the Dikkubali Thara, i.e., outside the traditional boundary.

W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025

2025:KER:26879

12. In Rajalakshmi [2023 (3) KHC 492], this Court held that, in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are performed promptly and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to include Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, in violation of the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial. Paragraphs 12 to 14 of the said decision read thus;

W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025

2025:KER:26879 "12. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 7th respondent Temple Advisory Committee would submit that Kalluvila and Kuzhithalachal falls within the boundary limits for conducting Dikkubali and as such, there is no legal impediment in conducting Dikkubali in those places. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the party respondents would place reliance on Ext.R2(b).

13. The pleadings and materials on record would show that, for the first time Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards were included in the list of places for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, in the year 2017. The said fact is admitted by the petitioner. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 6 is that those two places will not come within the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial. In the year 2017, the then President of the Temple Advisory Committee conducted 'Nirapara' in the house of his family members situated in Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila area without respecting the customary practice and rituals of Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple. The devotees of the temple raised protest on the ground that the infraction of the customary rituals of the temple will invite untoward incidents, detrimental to the residents of the desom. Accordingly, the wish of the deity was ascertained by conducting a 'Thiruvaiprasnam' in front of the deity, as evidenced by Ext.R2(a) Prasnacharthu dated 21.01.2020, in which it was found that conducting nirapara in areas beyond its permitted limits violating the customary rituals of the temple caused depletion of the Chaithanya of the 11 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 deity. After 'Thiruvaiprasnam', a 'Prayachitham' was done as a remedial measure for having deviated from the customary rituals of the temple. The Mootha Vathi (main priest) of the temple, vide Ext.R2(b) letter dated 28.01.2020, requested the 6th respondent Sub Group officer not to deviate from the traditionally followed boundary limits while conducting nirapara pooja during Kaliyootu festival in the year 2020. Considering the above aspect, the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.R2(c) communication dated 25.08.2020, directed the 4th respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner that no deviation from the customary practices of the temple shall be permitted in respect of the conduct of Nirapara/Irakki pooja. Thereafter, a Devaprasanam was conducted in the temple in November, 2022, in which it was found that deviation from customary rituals and practices in conducting Nirapara has affected the divine power of the deity.

14. In view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple are performed promptly and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani Bhadrakali Devi Temple according to the usage. The 7th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub- section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials 12 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to include Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Vellayani Sree Bhadrakali Temple, in violation of the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial."

13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, it is the statutory duty of the Travancore Devaswom Board to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Devaswom are performed promptly during Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam of the year 1200ME (2025) from 26.03.2025 to 01.04.2025. The Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, which consists of the devotees falling within the eligibility criteria prescribed in sub- clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of the Bye-laws (Rules) framed under Section 31A of the Act, has a statutory duty to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage.

14. The pleadings and materials in this writ petition would not show that the petitioner is having any hereditary right 13 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 to make Pachapanthal and for Pattuvirikkal during Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam in Vellayani Devaswom. Moreover, such issues cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since a decision on such issues involve disputed question of facts.

15. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.

16. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law 14 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.

In such circumstances, this writ petition fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MIN 15 W.P.(C)No.12765 of 2025 2025:KER:26879 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12765/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASWATHY PONGALA MAHOLSAVAM IS SET TO COMMENCE ON 26/03/2025 TO 01/04/2025 EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2025 EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/03/2025 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE THATCHED COCONUT LEAVES ARRANGED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH ARE NOW KEPT INSIDE THE TEMPLE PREMISES EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 'THEEVETTI' PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court