Kerala High Court
P.Narayana Menon vs Oochin Devaswom Board on 25 January, 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933
WP(C).No. 19193 of 2003(I)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------------
1. P.NARAYANA MENON,
SENIOR OFFICER OF INDIAN INFORMATION SERVICE, (GOVT. OF INDIA)
KARIMPATT HOUSE, KARIMPATT ROAD, THRISSUR
2. DR.K.PAVITHRAN, RETD. PROFESSOR OF VETENARY.
3. K.M.RAMAKRISHNAN, RETD. ACCOUNTS OFFICER
K.S.E.B., SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-7.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. OOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE,
ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680020.
2. PRESIDENT , COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
3. K.MANOHARAN, PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE,
PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, THRISSUR.
4. K.K.MENON, SECRETARY, MANAGING CMMITTEE,
PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, THRISSUR.
R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC , COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SC
R3, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.M.C.SEN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 19208 OF 2003 , THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 19193 of 2003(I)
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1. COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM.
EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2003.
EXT.P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY A COLLEGHE LECTURER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT
--------------------------------------
EXT.R3A. COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO.2076 OF 1998.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos.19193 & 19208 OF 2003
------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.
1.These writ petitions are filed raising certain issues in relation to Paramekkavu Devaswom and Pallissery Bhagavathy Temple. While the Paramekkavu Devaswom and the Pallissery Bhagavathy Khethra Samrakshana Samithy argue that they are not establishments which could be governed by the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the plea of the persons who complain mismanagement of those establishments is that these could be subjected to the control of the Cochin Devaswom Board.
2.The question of exercising powers under Section 83 and obliging the trustee to submit accounts, file return etc. would depend upon the question whether the institution is one which WPC.19193/03 & 19208/03 2 is governed by the provisions of the TCHRI Act. The terms 'institution' and 'incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms' are defined respectively in Sections 61(6) and 61(5) of that Act. The issuance of directions or doing anything which is permitted under Chapter IX of that Act would depend upon whether the institution is one to which that Act applies.
3.Section 62 of the TCHRI Act provides for vesting of administration of incorporated and unincorporated devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions in the CDB. Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions that would fall within that provision can be easily deciphered with reference to that Section. They are those which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949, either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. 1 of 1081.
WPC.19193/03 & 19208/03 3
4.In the aforesaid context, the first issue is as to whether the CDB could act under the provisions of the TCHRI Act in relation to the aforesaid Devaswoms. This issue can be only one dependent on different facts which would indicate the jurisdictional foundation for exercise of such authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioners deserve an opportunity for being heard by the CDB in relation to the representation, if any, already made and any other representation that they may make to the CDB. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel of Paramekkavu Devaswom, the decision on such an issue can be only after hearing that Devaswom and the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithy of Pallisserry Bhagavathy Temple. We also record that the learned counsel for Paramekkavu Devaswom has pointed out that a suit instituted in a civil court, also invoking Order I Rule 8 CPC in relation to the affairs of the Paramekkavu Devaswom, stands dismissed and that the said judgment is one that operates in rem and therefore, that issue cannot now be agitated. We also record the submission on WPC.19193/03 & 19208/03 4 behalf of the petitioners in W.P(C).19193/03 that they did not accept that the said verdict has become final.
5.For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that rather than decide on the maintainability of these writ petitions, it would be appropriate that the CDB authorities which are the statutory authorities under the provisions of the TCHRI Act, hear the parties, including the Paramekkavu Devaswom and the functionaries of the Pallissery Bhagavathi Temple and decide first on the issue as to whether those establishments are amenable to the jurisdiction of the CDB in terms of that Act and as to whether any directions or orders are required to be issued by CDB as regards those temples. Obviously, if the Board were to conclude that the institutions do not fall within the provisions of the TCHRI Act and CDB does not have the jurisdiction, it would not proceed with any further action. Either way, any person who is aggrieved by the direction or order that can be issued by the CDB will have adequate efficacious remedy for redressal of any grievance in that WPC.19193/03 & 19208/03 5 regard. We leave open all such issues and remedies and direct that the CDB authorities will hear the petitioners and the Paramekkavu Devaswom and the Pallissery Bhagavathi Temple in accordance with law, after giving them notice of pre- decisional hearing and take a decision on the matter within an outer limit of four months from now. All issues on merits are left open. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge.
kkb.17/8.