Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 18 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Manager,Puliyaparamb Higher ... vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2022
In Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (2)
KLT 885], a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple or its
11
W.P.(C)No.30773 of 2023
precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look
forward to give political asylum to their workers. The Division Bench
noticed that ours being a highly politically sensitive State, hardly any
person can be traced, who is completely apolitical or who may not have
his own independent political views. There may be persons having
permanent political ideologies or views whereas there may be equal
number of persons who hold views according to the issues involved.
Perhaps that may be the reason why Kerala has become a State of
political swinging. The Division Bench made it clear that holding political
views or sympathizing with a political denomination cannot be held a
disqualification for nominating anyone to such a post. On the facts of
the case on hand, the Division Bench held that "even assuming that
respondents 7 to 9 have some political leaning or rather they are
sympathizers of a political party, that fact will not disentitle them to be
considered for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. There is clear
distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in
active participation in the activities of the party. The taboo under sub-
clause (g) of clause 3 of the notification issued by the Commissioner
will be attracted only if respondents 7 to 9 are active politicians or are
office bearers of a political party, for which absolutely no evidence is
forthcoming.
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 explained the
diligence and devotion a trustee of a temple should have. When those
are the necessary qualifications required for a person to be appointed
as a non-hereditary trustee, and the danger of appointing unqualified
and untrustworthy persons as trustees, the Malabar Devaswom Board
shall stipulate the eligibility criteria in consonance with that. Therefore,
the Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to take a decision in that
regard before proceeding with any new appointment of non-hereditary
trustees in the temples under it.
Gopinatha Menon (Kenathachan) vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 12 April, 2012
In Gopinatha Menon (Kenathachan) v. Malabar
Devaswom Board [2012:KER:16515] a Division Bench of this Court
held that recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, is not
necessary to make an appointment of a non-hereditary trustee on any
ground referable to the conduct of the hereditary trustee, or
otherwise, when there is a scheme governing the trust, which provides,
among other things, for appointment of four non-hereditary trustees.
K.K. Chathu Achan vs The State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2021
In Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT
388] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K.
Narendran, J] was a party noticed that the decision of the Division
Bench in Parameshwaran Namboothiri P.M. v. Commissioner,
9
W.P.(C)No.30773 of 2023
Malabar Devaswom Board [2011 (2) KHC 719] and Sreedharan
Nambissan P. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2018
(2) KLT 115] are in the context of the provisions under sub-section (2)
of Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the appointment of non-
hereditary trustees in the circumstances stated in the sub-section (2),
which has no application when the appointment of non-hereditary
trustees in a temple is governed by the provisions under the scheme
framed under Section 58 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of
the Act relates to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in
temples, where there is no scheme framed in terms of Section 58 of the
Act. Once such a scheme is framed, the Malabar Devaswom Board has
to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance
with that scheme.
P.Parameswaran Namboothiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board/ on 14 September, 2012
In Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT
388] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K.
Narendran, J] was a party noticed that the decision of the Division
Bench in Parameshwaran Namboothiri P.M. v. Commissioner,
9
W.P.(C)No.30773 of 2023
Malabar Devaswom Board [2011 (2) KHC 719] and Sreedharan
Nambissan P. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2018
(2) KLT 115] are in the context of the provisions under sub-section (2)
of Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the appointment of non-
hereditary trustees in the circumstances stated in the sub-section (2),
which has no application when the appointment of non-hereditary
trustees in a temple is governed by the provisions under the scheme
framed under Section 58 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of
the Act relates to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in
temples, where there is no scheme framed in terms of Section 58 of the
Act. Once such a scheme is framed, the Malabar Devaswom Board has
to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance
with that scheme.
V.Sudharsanan vs The Malabar Devaswom Board on 5 April, 1944
In V. Sudharsanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board and
others [2012:KER:24089], the Division Bench of this Court was
dealing with a case in which one of the contention raised by the
petitioners was that, the persons elected are disqualified from being
appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple in question, on
account of their alleged political allegiance and the fact that they are
active political workers. The Division Bench noticed that the said
question is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided, if any
such objection is raised. Such decision-making process has to be
undertaken by the appointing authority. Therefore, if any one among
the petitioners has any objection or complaint in that regard, he may
place it before the Malabar Devaswom Board, within a period of one
month. If any such objection or complaint is received, the competent
authority will issue notice to the non-hereditary trustees concerned and
give him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on that issue,
in accordance with law.
1