Naduvilmadom Group Of Devaswoms vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 10 June, 2022

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Naduvilmadom Group Of Devaswoms vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 10 June, 2022

The petitioner, who is the hereditary trustee of Naduvil Madom Group of Devaswoms, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021 of the 2 nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby the 4th respondent, who is the Executive Officer of Sree Chirakkal Kovilakom Devaswom under the control of the 1 st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, has been appointed as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, which is one among the 18 temples under Naduvil Madom Group of Devaswoms (for brevity, 'Naduvil Madom Devaswoms'), and also Ext.P5 order dated 28.05.2021 of the 4 th respondent Executive Officer, whereby the petitioner was informed that immediate steps have to be taken for the implementation of Ext.P3 order.

2. On 05.08.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board undertook that, only for the purpose of preservation of the subject matter of the lis, respondents 1 to W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 4 3 will not take any coercive steps in pursuance of Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021 of the 2nd respondent Commissioner and also the consequential order, i.e., Ext.P5 order dated 28.05.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent Executive Officer, until 13.08.2021. The undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel on 05.08.2021, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. On 05.08.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an additional affidavit to give details to show that the petitioner, namely, Naduvil Madom Devaswoms, is a 'math' (madam), which is covered by Ext.P1 Scheme, which fulfills the definition of 'math' in clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Madras HR&CE Act'). This Court adjourned the writ petition to 11.08.2021 for consideration.

3. On 28.09.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 to 6, returnable within four weeks.

4. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 5 05.08.2021, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 09.08.2021 in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021, wherein it is stated that Naduvil Madom is having the characteristics of 'math' as enumerated in clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act and the object of the Madom is promotion of religious knowledge by imparting spiritual instructions to its disciples and followers. All the temples governed by Ext.P1 Scheme, including Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, are also coming under the Madom and Moopil Swamiyar is the spiritual head and hereditary trustee of the temples. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2021, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P6 order dated 29.07.2021 of the 1st respondent Commissioner, whereby the 4th respondent, who was appointed as the Executive Officer by Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021, was directed to take charge of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, since the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms refused to handover the charge of the administration of the said temple to the 4th respondent.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board has filed a statement dated 26.08.2021, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) order dated 08.06.2016 of the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 6 Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod, whereby an Executive Officer has been appointed in Keezhthali Siva Temple, Taliparamba, which is one among the 18 temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms. In the statement, it is stated that the temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms are within the purview of the Madras HR&CE Act and hence, under the control of the 1st respondent Board. Moopil Swamiyar is the hereditary trustee of the temples, who has to administer all the temples situated from Chavakkad Taluk in Thrissur District to Taliparamba in Kannur District. As per the provisions of Ext.P1 Scheme, the 1st respondent Board has ample power to remove the Trustee/Manager of the Devaswoms for sufficient reasons. As per Clause (5) of Ext.P1 Scheme, before taking charge, the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswom has to execute a bond to the satisfaction of the 1 st respondent Board. As per Clause (10), the Manager has to submit the income and expenditure statements before Moopil Swamiyar, within the time limit specified therein. After accepting the accounts, Moopil Swamiyar shall forward the same to the 1 st respondent Board for its approval. In the statement, it is alleged that the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is being carried W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 7 out by an unauthorised committee, namely, Sree Prayangod Sivashetra Seva Samithi, the 6th respondent herein. The functioning of that committee is against the guidelines stipulated in Circular No.HRH.5/8246/06 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner [Ext.R5(b)]. The accounts of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple are not submitted to the 1st respondent Board, annually, as stipulated in the provisions of Ext.P1 Scheme and also the provisions under the Madras HR&CE Act. Maramath works are being carried out in violation of the rules framed in exercise of the powers under clauses (q), (r) and (s) of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the said Act. Budgets under Section 70 of the Act, read with the Rules framed in exercise of the powers under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 100 are not being submitted for the approval of the Board. Accounts are not being maintained and audited as per the requirements of Section 71 of the Act and the Rules framed in exercise of the powers under clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 100. Counting of Hundials is being done in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court. In short, the temple administration is fraught with improper and irregular dealings, which necessitated the interference of the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 8 authorities under the Act. In the statement, various irregularities in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple are pointed out.

6. The 6th respondent Sree Prayangod Sivashetra Seva Samithi has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.12.2021, wherein it is stated that the Samithi is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960, as evidenced by Ext.R6(a) certificate of registration dated 03.08.1988. As per the bye-laws of the Samithi, it has to help the hereditary trustee, namely, Moopil Swamiyar, in the matter of day-today administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. The office bearers of the 6th respondent Samithi are being elected in every three years and the registration of the Society is still in force. On the strength of Ext.R6(b) proceedings dated 12.12.2003 of the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms, the 6th respondent Samithi is issuing necessary instructions to the staff of the temple regarding work arrangements and also the conduct of day-today affairs of the temple. Regular accounts are being submitted to the hereditary trustee, through the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms, as noticed in Ext.P4 order dated 09.03.2021 of the 3 rd respondent Assistant W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 9 Commissioner, Thalassery. According to the 6 th respondent, the Samithi is only acting under the hereditary trustee. The action of the 1st respondent Board in taking over the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple and appointing an Executive Officer on the allegation that the temple is being administered by the 6th respondent Samithi is legally unsustainable.

7. The 5th respondent, who is one among the complainants in the complaint dated 13.11.2020 submitted before the 2nd respondent Commissioner, which had resulted in Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021, has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.01.2022, wherein it is pointed out that the other complainants in the complaint dated 13.11.2020, namely, Sri.Udayan N., Sri.Sajesh P.V. and Sri.Nandakumar V., are necessary parties to this writ petition. Since they are not made parties to this writ petition, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the counter affidavit, the 5th respondent has pointed out various irregularities in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. The head office of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms situates at Thrissur, which is 220kms away from temple. The Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms visits the temple only once in three years or so. W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 10 The Manager has absolutely no control over the day-today affairs of the temple. Some persons in the locality formed the 6th respondent Samithi, which is illegally dealing with the administration of the temple and handling the huge income generated in the temple. There is no proper accounting for the income and expenditure of the temple for the last so many years. Neither Naduvil Madom Devaswoms nor the 1st respondent Board has records regarding the income and expenditure of the temple, at least for the last 15 years. The 6th respondent Samithi is engaging persons on temporary basis in the temple without complying with any legal formalities. For such appointments, no sanction is obtained from the statutory authorities. There is no proper payment of salary to the regular employees of the temple. In the counter affidavit, the 5 th respondent has raised serious allegations against the 6 th respondent Samithi. It is alleged that the Samithi collects money from the public using printed receipts in the name of the temple and also by placing Hundials in the temple premises. The functioning of the 6 th respondent Samithi is in gross violation of Ext.R5(b) Circular dated 04.06.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner, as rightly noticed in W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 11 Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021. The 5 th respondent along with others submitted Ext.R5(c) representation before the 2 nd respondent Commissioner and the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, pointing out various irregularities in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple.

8. On 16.12.2021, along with I.A.No.2 of 2021, the 5 th respondent has placed on record Ext.R5(a) notice issued by the 6th respondent Samithi, regarding Thiruvathira Mahothsavam scheduled on 20.12.2021. The said notice is one issued by the President and Secretary of the 6 th respondent Samithi. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2021, the 5th respondent alleged that the 6th respondent Samithi is accepting money from public for conducting the festival.

9. On 17.12.2021, during the course of arguments, the specific stand taken by the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent Samithi was that, the Samithi is not collecting any amount from the devotees. The learned counsel submitted that, an affidavit of the 6th respondent to that effect shall be placed on record by 20.11.2021. On 21.12.2021, the 6 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 12 I.A.No.2 of 2021, wherein it is stated that, no money is being collected from the public on behalf of the 6 th respondent, for the conduct of the temple festival.

10. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 27.01.2022 to the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has also filed another reply affidavit dated 27.01.2022 to the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent. In the reply affidavits, it is stated that, the 6 th respondent Samithi is only assisting the Manager appointed by the hereditary trustee in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. The right of trusteeship or the administration of the temple is never entrusted to the 6th respondent Samithi. The income and expenditure of the temple is being accounted and audited through an internal auditor and the cash book, passbook, ledgers and registers are kept intact. Most of them were produced before the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner is ready to produce all the necessary documents before the 1st respondent Board for their subjective satisfaction, if anything remains to be done. By Ext.P3 order, the Executive Officer is appointed, in order to take away the administration of the Temple from the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 13 hereditary trustee and assume control over the temple, as could be seen from Ext.P6 order. In Ext.P6 order, the 2 nd respondent Commissioner clarified Ext.P3 order to the effect that the 4th respondent Executive Officer has to take over the temple, if found necessary, with police aid, in the presence of the concerned Village Officer. In the reply affidavit, it is contended that each temple under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms is a different entity and establishment under the Madras HR&CE Act. Therefore, the fact that in one among the temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms, an Executive Officer has been appointed as per Annexure R1(a) order dated 08.06.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasargode, has no relevance at all. Without modifying Ext.P1 Scheme framed under Section 58 of the Act, the 1st respondent Board cannot interfere with the administration of the temple by the hereditary trustee as Madathipathi.

11. Relying on the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Chengara Puthiya Thrikkovil Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2012 (3) KHC 13], the petitioner would contend that there is no illegality or irregularity in the entrustment of the day- W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 14 today management of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple to the 6th respondent Samithi, for the purpose of helping the hereditary trustee. In the said decision, this Court held that the question of appointing a non-hereditary trustee under Section 39 of the Act would arise only when the Commissioner considers, after due enquiry, that the affairs of the temple are not properly managed by the hereditary trustees. The SLP filed against the said judgment ended in dismissal by the Apex Court. R.P.No.27 of 2014 filed before this Court against the decision in Chengara Puthiya Thrikkovil Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi [2012 (3) KHC 13] ended in dismissal by the order of this Court, reported in Malabar Devaswom Board v. Elayoor Sree Vishnu Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi and others [2014 (3) KHC 178].

12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

13. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Naduvil Madom is having the characteristics of a 'math' as defined in clause (10) of Section W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 15 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act, which is not a 'temple' as defined in clause (17) of Section 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would point out Annexure R1(a) order dated 08.06.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod, whereby an Executive Officer has been appointed in Keezhathali Siva Temple, Taliparamba, which is one among the 18 temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms.

14. Clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act, defines the term 'math' to mean a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto and presided over by a person whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over such a body; and includes places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution. Clause (17) of Section 6 defines the term 'temple' to mean a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu Community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship.

W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021

15. Clause (13) of Section 6 and Clause (20) of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for brevity, Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act') define 'math' and 'temple', which read thus;

"6(13) 'math' means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in accordance with the direction of the founder of the institution or is regulated by usage and-

(i) whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service; or

(ii) who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples;

and includes places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution;"

6(20) 'temple' means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship;" (underline supplied)

16. The provisions under clauses (10) and (17) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act are pari meteria to the provisions in clauses (13) and (20) of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act.

17. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v.

Ranchhoddas Kalidas [(1969) 2 SCC 853] and T.D. W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 17 Gopalan v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments [(1972) 2 SCC 329] the Apex Court held that the origin of the temple, the manner in which the affairs are managed, the gifts received by it, the rights exercised by devotees in regard to worship therein and the consciousness of the devotees themselves as to the character of the temple, are the factors which go to show whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple. It is also well settled that mere installation and consecration of idols in a place will not make it a place of public religious worship. Where the evidence shows that the disputed property retained the identity as a math and where Guru poojas (functions celebrating/important days associated with the founder or head of the math) are performed regularly, it will not lose the characteristic of a math and become a temple, merely because idols have been installed and members of a section of Hindu community offer worship. In fact, this fact is now statutorily recognised in the definition of 'math' in clause (13) of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act which makes it clear that a 'math' includes any place of religious worship which is appurtenant to the institution of a math.

W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021

18

18. In Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam v. P. Natesa Achari [(2011) 13 SCC 431], in the context of clauses (13) and (20) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, the Apex Court held that the distinction between maths and temples, stated in several judicial pronouncements has found statutory recognition in the aforesaid definitions. There are two necessary ingredients for a structure or place to be described as a temple under the Act. First is its use as a place of public religious worship. Second is dedication of the structure or place to, or for the benefit of, or use as of right by, the Hindu community or a section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. The mere fact that members of the public are allowed to worship at a place, will not make it a public temple. The Hindu sentiments and the tenets of Hinduism do not normally exclude worshippers from a place of worship, even when it is private or part of a math. Therefore, the crucial test is not whether the members of the public are permitted to worship, but whether the worship by the members of the public is as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, or whether a place has been dedicated as a place of public religious worship. [See the decision of the Privy Council in W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 19 Koman Nair v. Achuthan Nair [ILR (1935) 58 Madras 91] the decisions of the Madras High Court in Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board v. V.N. Deivanai Ammal [(1953) 2 MLJ 688 (Mad)], Bodendraswami Mutt v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments [(1955) 1 MLJ 60 (Mad)] and Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (Admn.) Department v. Tirukoilur Adhinam Tirupappuliyur Srimath Gnaniar Madalayam [(2003) 1 MLJ 726 (Mad)].

19. In the instant case, the averments in paragraph 1 of the writ petition is that, the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Naduvil Madom Group of Temples, which consists of 18 temples spread over in Malabar area. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021 it is stated that, Naduvil Madom was mainly concentrated in improvement and upliftment of Yajurvedas and it became more popular in Kerala. The area of operation of Naduvil Madom was expanded, which acquired sufficient landed properties in Kerala. The temples were established in Malabar area and those temples are famous temples having sufficient landed properties. The temples covered by Ext.P1 Scheme are temples governed by Naduvil Madom and Mooppil Swamiyar is the hereditary trustee of W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 20 those temples.

20. The fact that an Executive Officer has already been appointed in Keezhathali Siva Temple, Taliparamba, one among the 18 temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms, vide Ext.R1(a) order dated 08.06.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod, is not in dispute. The petitioner has no case that the said temple is not presently managed by the Executive Officer appointed by the 1st respondent Board.

Though, it is averred in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021 is that Naduvil Madom is having the characteristics of 'math' enumerated in clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act, the petitioner has no case that Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is a place of religious worship, which is appurtenant to the institution of 'math', i.e., Naduvil Madom.

21. On 31.05.2022, during the course of arguments, on a specific query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is not a place of religious worship, which is appurtenant to a 'math' as defined under clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act. As already noticed, Ext.P1 Scheme covers 18 W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 21 temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms spread over in Malabar area. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the 18 temples under Naduvil Madom in Malabar area are famous temples having sufficient landed properties. In the light of the pleadings and materials on record, we find no force in the contention of the petitioner that Sree Prayangod Siva Temple under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms is not a place of religious worship (temple), which is appurtenant to a 'math' as defined under clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act. It is a 'temple', as defined in clause (17) of Section 6 of the said Act, which is used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated for use as of right by the Hindu Community as a place of public religious worship. The contentions to the contra raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be rejected as untenable and we do so.

22. Moopil Swamiyar is the hereditary trustee of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, who is bound to administer all the temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms from Chavakkad Taluk in Thrissur District to Taliparamba in Kannur District. As per the provisions of Ext.P1 Scheme, the 1st respondent Board has ample power to remove the Trustee/Manager of the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 22 Devaswom for sufficient reasons. As per Clause (5) of Ext.P1 Scheme, before taking charge, the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms has to execute a bond to the satisfaction of the 1 st respondent Board. As per Clause (10), the Manager has to submit the income and expenditure statements before Moopil Swamiyar, within the time limit specified therein. After accepting the accounts, Moopil Swamiyar shall forward the same to the 1st respondent Board for its approval.

23. In the statement, it is alleged that the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is being carried out by an unauthorised committee, namely, Sree Prayangod Sivashetra Seva Samithi, the 6th respondent herein. The functioning of that committee is against the guidelines stipulated in Circular No.HRH.5/8246/06 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner [Ext.R5(b)]. The accounts of Prayangod Siva Temple are not submitted to the 1 st respondent Board, annually, as stipulated in the provisions of Ext.P1 Scheme and also the provisions under the Madras HR&CE Act. Maramath works are being carried out in violation of the rules framed in exercise of the powers under clauses

(q), (r) and (s) of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the said W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 23 Act. Budgets as provided under Section 70 of the Act, read with the Rules framed in exercise of the powers under clause

(g) of sub-section (2) of Section 100, are not being submitted for the approval of the Board. Accounts are not being maintained and audited as per the requirements of Section 71 of the Act and the Rules framed in exercise of the powers under clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 100. Counting of Hundials is being done in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court. In short, the temple administration is fraught with improper and irregular dealings, which necessitated the interference of the authorities under the Act. In the statement, various irregularities in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple are pointed out.

24. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the income and expenditure of the temple are being accounted and audited through an internal auditor and the cash book, passbook, ledgers and registers are kept intact. Most of them were produced before the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner is ready to produce all the necessary documents before the 1st respondent Board for their W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 24 subjective satisfaction, if anything remains to be done. The aforesaid statements made in the reply affidavit would make it explicitly clear that accounts are not being maintained and audited by the petitioner as per the requirements of Section 71 of the Act and the rules framed in exercise of the powers under clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the Madras HR&CE Act.

25. As already noticed hereinbefore, as per Clause (5) of Ext.P1 Scheme, before taking charge the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms has to execute a bond to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent Board. As per clause (10) of Ext.P1 Scheme, the Manager has to submit income and expenditure statements before Moopil Swamiyar, within the time limit specified therein. After accepting the accounts, Moopil Swamiyar shall forward the same to the 1 st respondent Board for its approval. The fact that audited accounts as per the requirements of Section 71 of the Act are not being submitted for the approval of the 1st respondent Board at the appropriate time is not in serious dispute.

26. Section 20 of the Madras HR&CE Act deals with powers and duties of the Commissioner in respect of religious W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 25 endowments. As per Section 20, subject to the provisions of the said Act, the administration of all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner; and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist.

27. Section 45 of the Madras HR&CE Act deals with power to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees. As per sub- section (1) of Section 45, the Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustees thereof (a) for persistent default in the submission of budgets, accounts, reports or returns; or (b) for wilful disobedience of any lawful order issued under the provisions of this Act by the State Government, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner; or (c) for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 26 respect of the trust; or (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution; or (e) for unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits him for discharging the functions of the trustee.

28. As already found, Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is not a place of religious worship, which is appurtenant to a 'math' as defined under clause (10) of Section 6 of the Madras HR&CE Act. It is a 'temple', as defined in clause (17) of Section 6 of the said Act, which is used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated for use as of right by the Hindu Community as a place of public religious worship. Vide Ext.R1(a) order dated 08.06.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod, an Executive Officer has already been appointed in Keezhathali Siva Temple, Taliparamba, which is one among the 18 temples under Naduvil Madom Devaswoms. The specific stand taken in the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 is that Maramath works in the temple are being carried out in violation of the rules framed in exercise of the power under clauses (q), (r) and (s) of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the Madras HR&CE Act. The counting of W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 27 Hundials is being done in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court. In short, the temple administration is fraught with improper and irregular dealings, which necessitated the interference of the authorities under the Act. Instead of invoking the powers under Section 45 of the Madras HR&CE Act, the 2nd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. Various irregularities in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple are pointed out in Ext.P3 order of the 2 nd respondent Commissioner and also in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The powers and duties that may be exercised by the Executive Officer are also specified in Ext.P3 order.

29. The 5th respondent, who is one among the complainants in the complaint dated 13.12.2020 filed before the 2nd respondent Commissioner, which had resulted in Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021 of the said respondent, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is specifically contended that there is no proper accounting of the income and expenditure in Sree Prayangod Siva Temple for the last so many years. The 6 th respondent Samithi is illegally dealing with the administration W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 28 of the temple and handling the huge income generated in the temple. Neither Naduvil Madom Devaswoms nor the 1st respondent Board has records regarding the income and expenditure of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, at least for the last 15 years. The 6th respondent Samithi is engaging persons on temporary basis in the temple, without complying with any legal formalities and obtaining sanction from the statutory authorities. The 5th respondent has raised serious allegations against the 6th respondent Samithi. It is alleged that the Samithi is collecting money from the public using printed receipts in the name of the temple and also by placing Hundials in the temple premises.

30. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent, Ext.R5(b) Circular dated 04.06.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner is placed on record, whereby certain guidelines were stipulated on the functioning of committees in temples. The said circular contains detailed guidelines for the formation and functioning of Committees in temples under the control of the 1 st respondent Board. Such committees are constituted, if found necessary, for conducting festivals and renovation works in a temple with the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 29 participation of the devotees. Such committees, at any rate, cannot function permanently in a temple. The committee shall function for one year or till its objects are achieved or till the order of the Commissioner stopping the functioning of the committee, whichever is earlier. For constituting such a committee, prior to the constitution of such a committee, permission from the department has to be obtained and the committee shall function only in accordance with the conditions stipulated by the Department.

31. The specific stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P3 order is that the functioning of the 6 th respondent Samithi in Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is in violation of the guidelines stipulated in Ext.R5(b) Circular. The statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 and also the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent contain specific allegations to that effect. The 6th respondent Samithi has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, as per the bye-laws of the Samithi, it has to help the Hereditary Trustee, namely, Moopil Swamiyar, in the matter of day-today administration of the Temple. The office bearers of the 6 th respondent Samithi are being elected in every three years and the registration of the Society is still W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 30 in force. On the strength of Ext.R6(b) proceedings dated 12.12.2003 of the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms, the 6th respondent Samithi is issuing necessary instructions to the staff of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple regarding work arrangements and also the conduct of day-today affairs of the temple. Regular accounts are being submitted to the hereditary trustee, through the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms. According to the 6th respondent, the Samithi is only acting under the hereditary trustee.

32. A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the 6 th respondent would make it explicitly clear that the accounts of the Samithi are not being audited and as alleged in the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 and the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is by the 6th respondent Samithi. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, in Ext.P4 order dated 09.03.2021, the 3 rd respondent Assistant Commissioner noticed that, as per the income and expenditure accounts for the years 2018 and 2019, 50% of the income from the temple is sufficient to disburse the salary payable to the employees for the years 2018 and 2019. As per Clause W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 31 (10) of Ext.P1 Scheme, the Manager has to submit the income and expenditure statements before Moopil Swamiyar, within the time limit specified therein. After accepting the accounts, Moopil Swamiyar shall forward the same to the 1 st respondent Board for its approval. The petitioner has not chosen to produce any documents to show that the audited accounts of the temple are being submitted to the 1 st respondent, as provided in Ext.P1 Scheme.

33. The case of the petitioner is that the 6 th respondent Samithi is only assisting the Manager appointed by the hereditary trustee in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. The right of trusteeship or the administration of the temple is never entrusted to the 6th respondent Samithi. It is an admitted fact that the head office of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms is situated at Thrissur, which is 220kms away from the temple. The specific allegation made in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent is that the Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms visits the temple only once in three years or so. The Manager has absolutely no control over the day-to-day affairs of the temple and the 6 th respondent Samithi is illegally dealing with the administration of the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 32 temple and handling the huge income generated in the temple.

34. The petitioner has not chosen to place on record any materials to show that the hereditary trustee or the Manager is having any control over the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is with the 6th respondent Samithi. The hereditary trustee and the Manager appointed by him have no active role in the administration of the said temple or in the day-to-day affairs of that temple. Therefore we find no merits in the contention of the petitioner that the 6th respondent Samithi is only assisting the Manager appointed by the hereditary trustee in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this Court in Chengara Puthiya Thrikkovil Kshethra Samsarakshana Samithi [2012 (3) KHC 13] has no application to the facts of the case on hand.

35. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent Commissioner is one issued based on a complaint dated 30.11.2020 filed by the 5th respondent and three others, namely, Sri.Udayan N., Sri.Sajesh P.V. and W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 33 Sri.Nandakumar V. They are not made parties to this writ petition, for reasons best known to the petitioner. We find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that this writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

36. Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the 4th respondent herein has been appointed as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, cannot be said to be one issued in violation of the principles of natural justice or absolutely without any jurisdiction. The specific finding made by the 2nd respondent Commissioner in Ext.P3 order is that the 6th respondent Sree Prayangod Siva Kshethra Seva Samithi is functioning in the temple without the approval of the Board. The Manager of Naduvil Madom Devaswoms or the President/Secretary of the 6th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi have not produced any document or evidence to show that the said Samithi has obtained approval of the Board. Alleging irregularities in the administration of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, the 5th respondent and others submitted a complaint dated 13.11.2020 before the 2nd respondent Commissioner. They had approached this Court by filing W.P. W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 34 (C)No.26444 of 2020, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 30.11.2020, whereby the 2 nd respondent was directed to consider that representation and pass appropriate orders within a time frame. The 2 nd respondent considered the matter after obtaining a report dated 11.01.2022 of the 3 rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Thalassery. After hearing both sides, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order, whereby the 4th respondent has been appointed as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple.

37. Exts.P3 and P5 orders were under challenge in W.P. (C)No.12475 of 2021 filed by the Manager appointed in terms of Ext.P1 Scheme. That writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated 28.09.2021, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prosecute this writ petition.

38. In Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021, the 2nd respondent found that, the opening of Hundials in Sree Prayangod Siva Temple is without obtaining permission from the 1st respondent Board. The guidelines issued by this Court are also not followed while opening the Hundials. Maramath works are being carried out in violation of the relevant rules. Budgets are not being submitted for the approval of the Board. W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 35 Accounts are not being maintained and audited as per the requirements of Section 71 of the Act. The allegations to that effect contained in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 stand unchallenged in the reply affidavit dated 27.01.2022 filed by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent Commissioner issued Ext.P3 order appointing an Executive Officer for Sree Prayangod Siva Temple, on noticing that the temple administration is fraught with improper and irregular dealing, which necessitated the interference of the authorities under the Madras HR&CE Act. The reasoning of the 2 nd respondent in Ext.P3 order for appointing the 4th respondent as the Executive Officer for Sree Prayangod Siva Temple cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

39. The specific stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that, Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2021 of the 2nd respondent is not for removing the hereditary trustee of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple or to take over the administration of the said temple. As specified in Ext.P3 order, the Administration of the Temple is to be done in W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 36 consultation with the hereditary trustee, so as to make the administration of the temple proper and transparent. Therefore, the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple will in no way infringes the right of the hereditary trustee. Ext.P6 order dated 29.07.2021 of the 2nd respondent is nothing but a consequential proceedings, as the directions contained in Ext.P3 order has not been complied with by the hereditary trustee and the Manager, within the time limit specified in Ext.P3.

40. For the aforesaid reasons the 2nd respondent Commissioner cannot be found fault with in issuing Ext.P3 order appointing the 4th respondent as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple. Therefore, the challenge made in this writ petition against Exts.P3 and P5 fails. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

The 4th respondent, who is appointed as the Executive Officer of Sree Prayangod Siva Temple shall take charge, if found necessary by police assistance, as ordered in Ext.P6 order dated 29.07.2021 of the 2nd respondent, and the W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 37 Administration of the Temple by the Executive Officer shall be in consultation with the hereditary trustee.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE yd/AV W.P.(C)No.15269 of 2021 38 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15269/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR ADMINISTRATION OF NADUVILMADOM GROUP OF DEVASWOMS (18 IN NUMBER) WITH TYPED COPY.

Exhibit P2        TRUE   COPY  OF   THE   JUDGMENT   DATED
                  30/11/2020 IN WP NO.26444/2020.
Exhibit P3        TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
                  2ND RESPONDENT NO. H5/ 3372/ 2020/
                  MDB/ K.DIS. DATED 03/03/2021.
Exhibit P4        TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A4
                  2389/2020/MDB DATED 09/03/2021.
Exhibit P5        TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY
                  THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE TRUSTEE
                  DATED 28/05/2021.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R6(a)     TRUE    COPY   OF    THE    REGISTRATION
                  CERTIFICATE NO 287/1998 DATED 03-08-
                  1988.
Exhibit R6(b)     TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY
                  THE PETITIONER DEVASWOM TO THE 6TH
                  RESPONDENT DATED 12-12-2003.
Exhibit R5(a)     TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE NIL
                  ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT SAMITHI
                  DATED 13.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
                  RESPONDENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
                  PETITIONER SAMITHI

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court