Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The hereditary trusteeship of the temple vests in the Zamorin Raja of Calicut and the Karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam. There were disputes between the Zamorin Raja and the Karanavan of the Illam regarding the Oorayma rights. The disputes were finally settled by judgment dated 1-11-1889 of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 35 of 1887. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1926 came into force on 8-2-1927. A scheme for administration of the temple and its properties was settled by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 63( 1) of the Act. As per the Scheme the day-to-day management of the temple was entrusted to the Zamorin Raja subject to supervision by the Officers of the Board. The Board did not recognise the rights of the karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam for hereditary trusteeship of the temple. Hence he filed O.S. No. 1/1929 in the District Court of South Malabar under Section 63 of the 1926 Act to amend the Scheme recognising his right to be a joint trustee with the Zamorin Raja. The worshippers at whose instance the Board had framed the Scheme also filed a suit, O.S. No. 2 of 1929, in the same Court contending that there was no sufficient safeguards in the Scheme for proper management of the temple and its properties and praying for the constitution of a Board of Trustees consisting also of three non-hereditary trustees, from among the devotees. The District Court by judgment dated 25-10-1929 upheld the claim of the Karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam to be a joint trustee along with the Zamorin Raja and amended the Scheme making provision for joint management by the two hereditary trustees. The judgments in O.S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1929 are produced along with the counter-affidavit as Exts. R3 (b) and R3(c). The Zamorin Raja of Calicut filed A.S. Nos. 211 and 212 of 1930 before the High Court of Madras against the decision of the District Court. The appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21-11-1930, produced along with the counter-affidavit as Ext. R3(b). The judgment affirmed the decision of the District Court in so far as it recognised the right of the Karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam to function as a joint hereditary trustee. The prayer for appointment of non-hereditary trustees was rejected. A provision was however made for the issue of a public notice intimating the date and time of the opening of Bhandarams in the temple sufficiently in advance to enable the worshippers interested to be present and to ensure that the collections are properly accounted for. A group of worshippers thereafter filed O.S. No. 1 of 1933 before the District Court, South Malabar for a modification of the scheme and the District Court by judgment dated 10-9-1939 made certain modifications for more efficient administration and management of the temple and its properties. The temple and its properties were being managed and administered as per the provisions of the Scheme settled in O.S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1929 as modified in O.S. No. 1 of 1933 at the time when the Constitution came into force. After the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 came into force on 30-9-1951, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration Department) filed O.P. No. 3 of 1965 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichur under Section 62(3)(a) of the Act for modification of the Scheme on lines indicated in a draft Scheme annexed thereto. During the pendency of O. P. No. 3 of 1965 a major portion of the temple was destroyed by fire in 1970. A Commission appointed by the Government to enquire into the cause of the fire came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of prolonged neglect in the matter of maintenance and timely repairs. It was also found that the buildings and the temple were in total disrepair and required immediate attention. The report disclosed gross neglect on the part of those in charge of the administration and management of the temple. Apparently with a view to make provision for proper management and administration of the temple the State Legislature passed the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971 (Act 6 of 1971), (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). The validity of Act 6 of 1971 was challenged by the hereditary trustees in O. P. 812 of 1971 before this Court on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 19(l)(f), 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by a Full Bench of this Court as per the judgment in Kunhettan Thampuram v. State of Kerala reported in 1973 Ker LT 106 : (AIR 1973 Ker 106). Act 6 of 1971 was amended by Act 12 of 1972 with a view to make provision for the renovation of the temple. The validity of the Act as amended was challenged in O. P. No. 314 of 1973 on behalf of the denomination consisting of the Hindu public having faith in temple worship as violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The writ petition was in a representative capacity on permission granted by this Court under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. to the petitioner therein to represent the denomination. A Full Bench of five Judges of this Court found the operative provisions of Act 6 of 1971 unconstitutional and void and the entire Act was struck down as per the decision in Krishnan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom reported in 1979 Ker LT 350 : (AIR 1978 Ker 68) (FB). The Governor of Kerala immediately thereafter promulgated the Guruvayoor Devaswom Ordinance No. 25 of 1977. It was later replaced by Act 14 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The new Act purports to cure the infirmities in the old Act pointed out by the Full Bench in its judgment reported in 1979 Ker LT 350 : (AIR 1978 Ker 68).

7. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the salient features of the new Act. The Act purports to be one to make provision for the proper administration of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The Preamble of the Act refers to the Scheme under which the temple had been administered, the old Act passed in the interests of the general public and the decision of this Court striking down the old Act as violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It further states that if the administration and control of the temple is vested in the hereditary trustees, the same situation which had rendered it necessary to pass the old Act would again arise and it is in the public interest and in the interests of the worshippers of the temple, the new Act is passed for the proper administration of the Devaswom in accordance with law. Section 3 of the Act enacts that the administration, control and management of the Devaswom shall be vested in a Committee constituted as, per the Act. The Committee shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal; it may sue in its own name and may be sued through the Administrator. As per Section 4 the Committee is to consist of (a) the Zamorin Raja, (b) the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illam at Guruvayoor, (c) the Thanthri of the temple, ex-officio, (d) a representative of the employees of the Devaswom nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers and (e) not more than five persons, of whom one shall be a member of a Scheduled Caste, nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers from among persons having interest in the Temple. Sub-section (2) enumerates the disqualifications for nomination as members of the Committee. Sub-section (3) provides for the election of a Chairman of the Committee and Sub-section (4) requires the members of the Committee before entering upon office to make and subscribe to an oath in the form mentioned therein. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 5 the nominated members, are entitled to hold office for a period of two years and are eligible for re-nomination. Subsection (2) relates to resignation by a member by notice in writing issued to the Government and Sub-section (3) empowers the Government to remove a member from office for any of the reasons mentioned therein. The member is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against his removal and is also entitled to institute a suit, in case he is removed from office. Section 6 empowers the Government by notification in the Gazette to supersede the Committee for such period not exceeding six months as the Government may deem fit. The section empowers any member of the superseded Committee to institute a suit to set aside the notification of the Government superseding the Committee. The Commissioner under the Act is required to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee during the period of its supersession. Section 7 relates to the meetings of the Committee and Section 8 enacts that the proceedings of the committee shall not be invalidated for any of the defects mentioned therein. Section 9 states the members of the committee are not entitled to salary or other remuneration except such travelling or daily allowance, if any, as may be prescribed. Section 10 enumerates the duties of the committee; Section 11 provides for the sanction of the Commissioner before any property of the Devaswom is sold or alienated. The sanction referred to in the section can be granted only if the Commissioner is satisfied that the alienation in question is necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom. The section provides also for a suit against the order of the Commissioner sanctioning or declining to sanction alienation of property proposed by the committee. Section 12 enacts the limitations of powers of the committee to borrow on behalf of the Devaswom or lend its money to any person. Section 13 requires the committee to submit annual administration reports to the Commissioner. Chapter III of the Act relates to the administration and establishment. Section 14 empowers the Committee to appoint an officer of the Government not below the rank of a Deputy Collector to be the Administrator of the Devaswom from among a panel of names furnished by the Government. The Administrator should be a person professing Hindu Religion and having belief in temple worship. Section 15 provides for the conditions of service of the Administrator. The Government is entitled to appoint an officer of the Government not below the rank of a Deputy Collector to be in additional charge of the office of the Administrator when the post is vacant. Section 17 enumerates the powers and duties of the Administrator. The Administrator is required under Section 18 to prepare and submit an establishment schedule to the committee showing the duties, designations, grades etc. of the officers and employees of the Devaswom and the committee is required to forward the same to the Commissioner with its recommendations. The Commissioner is entitled to make such modifications as are found necessary and the schedule would come into force on its approval by the Commissioner with or without modifications. The right to appoint officers and employees of the Devaswom is vested in the committee subject to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Section 20 requires the Committee to submit proposals to the Commissioner fixing the dittam or scale of expenditure and for allotment of funds for the various objects. The Commissioner is required to scrutinise the proposals and, subject to such modifications or alterations as may be made by him, the proposals submitted by the committee shall be final. The Committee is given a right to file a suit against orders if any passed by the Commissioner on the proposals submitted under Section 20. Chapter IV relates to budget, accounts and audit. Under Section 27 the committee is authorised to incur expenses for the purposes mentioned therein. The Committee is entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties belonging to the Devaswom (vide Section 28). Section 29 relates to the protection of action taken by the Government, the Commissioner, the Committee or any member thereof or the Administrator or any other person acting under the instructions of the Committee for anything done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Section 32 enacts a bar of suits against any orders passed, decisions made or proceedings taken or other things done under the Act by the Government or the Commissioner except as expressly provided in the Act. Section 33 confers a power of revision on the Government in respect of the proceedings of the Commissioner or the Committee in all cases where no suit or application before a court is provided for under the Act. Section 34 enacts a saving clause in respect of any honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise from or in the Devaswom, or its established usage in regard to any other matter. Section 35(1) enacts a prohibition against the Committee or the Commissioner or the Government from interfering with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom, and as per Sub-section (2) the decision of the Thanthri shall be final in all such matters, Sec. 36 relates to a transitory provision for removal of difficulties that may arise in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Section 38 empowers the Government by notification in the Gazette to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. The Committee is authorised under Section 39 to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for the manner in which the duties imposed on it under the Act and its functions thereunder are to be discharged. Section 40 enacts that the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 shall cease to apply to the Guruvayoor Devaswom. Section 41 repeals the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971 and saves the orders passed, decisions made etc. under the Repealed Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. As per Section 42 the committee constituted under Section 4 shall be the successor of the Renovation Executive Committee constituted under the old Act. Section 43(1) repeals the Guruvayoor Devaswom Ordinance, 1977 and under Sub-section (2) anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the new Act.

10. Section 4 of the new Act relates to the composition of the committee. The Committee consists of (a) the Zamorin Raja; (b) the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri lllom at Guruvayoor; (c) the Thanthri of the temple, ex-officio; (d) a representative of the employees of the Devaswom nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers; and (e) not more than five persons, of whom one shall be a member of a Scheduled Caste, nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers from among persons having interest in the Temple. The expression "person having interest in the Temple" is defined in Section 2(f) to mean "a person who is entitled to attend at, or is in the habit of attending, the performance of worship or service in the Temple or who is entitled to partake, or is in the habit of partaking, in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat". As per Sub-section (2) of Section 4 a person shall be disqualified for being nominated under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1), if (i) he believes in the practice of untouchabilily or does not profess the Hindu Religion or does not believe in temple worship; or (ii) he is an employee under the Government or the Devaswom; or (iii) he is below thirty years of age; or (iv) he is engaged in any subsisting contract with the devaswom; or (v) he is subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 5. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 requires every member of the Committee, before entering upon office, to make and subscribe to an oath in the presence of the Commissioner in the form mentioned therein. The form of the oath requires that the member to swear in the name of God that he professes the Hindu Religion and believes in temple worship and does not believe in the practice of untouchability. The provisions of Section 4 clearly indicate that the Committee to be constituted should consist of members belonging to the denomination of Hindus having faith in temple worship. The Zamorin Raja and the Karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam are the hereditary trustees who were representing the denomination before the old Act had come into force. The Thanthri holds a hereditary post in the Temple and there can be no doubt that he is also a person competent to represent the denomination. The persons nominated under Clauses (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) are required to subscribe to an oath to affirm faith in Hindu Religion and belief in temple worship. One of the reasons to invalidate Section 4 of the old Act by the Full Bench was that the persons nominated were not required to have faith in temple worship. There is nq such defect in Section 4 of the new Act. In Govindlalji's case (1964 (1) SCR 561 ; AIR 1963 SC 1638) it was found that the Nathdwara Temple at Rajasthan is a public temple, the Tilkayat was only its custodian and Manager, by a Firman issued by the Rana of Udaipur in 1934, the Udaipur Darbar had absolute rights to supervise the administration of the temple and its properties including also the right to depose the Tilkayat, and the right of administration of property and management of the Devaswom is purely a secular matter in the regulation of which it was open to the State to enact the Nathdwara Temple Act of 1959. It is stated at page 624 (of SCR) : (at p. 1662 of AIR) :--

Wehave already seen that by the repealof the old Act and the re-enactment of Section 40 in its present form in the new Act a right of suit under Section 92 C.P.C. is available to the denomination or on its behalf. The infirmity pointed out by the Full Bench has now been removed Section 37 of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 barring suits against the State Government for anything done under the said Act which by Section 31 conceded a right of suit for the reliefs mentioned therein was held valid by the Supreme Court in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj's case (1964) 1 SCR 561 : (AIR 1963 SC 1638). The Supreme Court observed at page 637 (of SCR) : (at p. 1666 of AIR) :--