Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950
K.B.Sumodh vs The Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom ... on 8 February, 2023
30. In the order dated 08.06.2011 in DBP No.48 of 2010,
this Court directed that no other programmes except those
permitted will be undertaken without specific orders of this Court.
The said order was made absolute in the order dated 08.07.2013
in DBP No.48 of 2010, wherein it was ordered that all the
directions will remain as such for future application. In Petition
No.23 of 2013, filed by the 1st respondent Board seeking
permission to use Sree Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan
(Thekkinkadu Maidan) for commercial purposes like conducting
exhibitions, etc., permission was also sought for allowing political
30
W.P.(C)No.33334 of 2023
parties to conduct meetings, etc., in the Kshethra Maidan. In the
order dated 30.09.2013 in DBP No.78 of 2013, arising out of
Petition No.23 of 2013, the Division Bench noticed that the view
taken in paragraph 3 of the order dated 08.07.2013 in DBP No.48
of 2010 is that only restricted activities can be permitted in
Thekkinkadu Maidan apart from using it in connection with
Thrissur Pooram Festival. If any other unrestricted activities are
permitted, it will have an adverse impact on the property which
is one of the important locations as far as the entire town is
concerned. Therefore, the order passed in DBP No.48 of 2010 will
take care of all matters which may arise in future. In the said
order dated 30.09.2013, the Division Bench clarified that,
whenever fresh applications or proposals are received from
interested parties, the Cochin Devaswom Board will place the
matter before this Court for consideration and only after sanction
by this Court any such activities can be permitted. Ext.P4
judgment dated 11.04.2023 - K.B.Sumodh v. Commissioner,
Cochin Devaswom Board [2023:KER:25530] is one rendered
by this Court after taking note of various orders of the Division
Bench on the point including the orders in DBP Nos.48 of 2010
and 78 of 2013. In such circumstances, we find absolutely no
merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
31
W.P.(C)No.33334 of 2023
that the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment will not stand in
the way of the 1st respondent Board and its officials in granting
permission to the petitioner for film shooting in Sree
Vadakkunnathan Kshethra Maidan.
Cochin Devaswom Board vs The Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit ... on 2 March, 2022
24. DBP No.31 of 2022 was one registered based on CDB
Report No.18 of 2022 in Petition No.3 of 2022 of the learned
Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. The
Board filed Petition No.3 of 2022 before the learned Ombudsman,
seeking permission to conduct exhibitions and trade fairs in
Thrissur Pooram Exhibition Ground in Sree Vadakkunnathan
Kshethra Maidan (Thekkinkadu Maidan), during the period other
than Thrissur Pooram exhibition. That DBP was disposed of by
the order dated 29.07.2022 - Cochin Devaswom Board v.
Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department
[2022:KER:40635]. By the said order, the 1st respondent Board
was directed to ensure that proper income is generated by
conducting the auction of the right to conduct stalls/pavilions in
the Onam exhibition/trade fair in Thekkinkadu Maidan. In such
transactions, the Board and its officials have to show due
diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business
26
W.P.(C)No.33334 of 2023
to conduct his own affairs, since the Board is essentially a trustee
of Devaswom land which vests in the deity. Since Thekkinkad
Maidan is a Devaswom property no sale/trade of any
objectionable substances shall be permitted in the Onam
exhibition/trade fair, in the exhibition ground.
A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors on 19 July, 2007
In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom
Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom
Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their
trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many
where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and
safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom
Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by
setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse
possession. This is possible only with the passive or active
collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of 'fence eating
the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government,
members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be
15
W.P.(C)No.33334 of 2023
vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is
also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of
religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or
misappropriation.
Travancore Devaswom Board vs Rajasekharan Nair on 26 May, 2003
In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan
Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed
that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] the Apex
Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and
safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and
charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu
law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a
minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor
and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the
Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the
Land Reforms Act, 1957, viz., the powers of revision, the High
Court has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae
will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction.