Sunil Thomas, J.

1. Since these proceedings are interlinked to each other, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16946/2013 is Ambattukavu Kshetra Samrakshna Seva Sangham and the second petitioner is its Secretary. The second respondent is the Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary. The third respondent is the commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The 5th respondent represents the temple Trust. The 4th respondent is Ambattukavu Bhagavathi Kshetra Samithi, a registered association represented by its Secretary. The Ambattukavu Temple originally belonged to Karingambilly Swarupam. Since the members of Swarupam were residing far RFA Nos.161/2013 & others away from the temple, they found it difficult to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple. Hence, the then Karnavar of the Swarupam created a trust by a deed dated 11/8/1993 with six trustees and the right to carry out daily pooja, conduct of festivals and other religious rites were conferred on the Trust, without transferring the ownershipof the temple. Temple is situated in a land of about 70.168 cents.

3. According to the writ petitioners, Seva Samithi was formed by the devotees and local residents for protecting the interest of the devotees, who believed in the temple deity. The Seva Sangham claimed that, upon the request of the Administrative Officer, its members used to assist him in the various temple related activities. When the temple was earlier managed by the 5th respondent Trust, there were serious allegations of mal administration and of misappropriation of temple funds. This was revealed through an audit report of the year 2005. Since,no remedial steps were taken by the officials, some of the devotees approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.706/2005 seeking appropriate action. The writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent commissioner to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act(hereinafter referred to as the TCHRI Act) and to take necessary steps as provided under the provisions and the relevant statutes. Pursuant to the judgment,an enquiry was conducted by the Audit Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board,which revealed serious anomalies and misappropriation of public fund. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the third respondent after giving a reasonable opportunity to all concerned. In the report, necessary action under TCHRI Act was recommended. Ext.P2 is the report dated 28/6/2008 of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner(Inspection). Various financial and other irregularities were identified in the above proceedings. Subsequently, the third respondent, after giving notice to all the members of the Trust of the proposed assumption of management of the temple and after conducting due enquiry, issued Ext.P3 preliminary notification dated 22/12/2008 calling for objections to the proposed action. Thereafter, Ext.P4 final notification was issued by the Board on 8th October, 2009, dissolving the committee which was functioning by virtue of the Trust Deed No.205/1993 and stood removed under Section 41 of the Act. The Administrative Officer, Aluva of the Travancore Devaswom Board was appointed as the Receiver of the Temple under Section 42(1) of the TCHRI Act. The appointment was for a period of three years. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Vaikom was directed to constitute a new temple Advisory Committee in the temple. The Administrative Officer, Aluva was directed to take charge within 15 days until final notification was published.

4. The present grievance of the petitioner herein is that though Exts.P3 and P4 notifications were issued, no further action was taken thereafter. Even though the final decision in accordance with the Rules had been taken by the Devaswom Board, the final notification has not been practically implemented.

5. In the meanwhile, the 4threspondent-AmbattukavuBhagavathy Kshektra Samithi challenged Ext.P4 notification in W.P. (C) No.37390/2009 before this Court. Some of the devotees,who now claim to be the members of the Seva Sangam had also approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.6943/2010 to implement the preliminary and final notifications dated 22/12/2008 and 8/10/2009 and other reliefs including a direction to the Devaswom Board to assume the management of the temple. The above writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment reported in Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshethra Samithy v. State of Kerala (2010 (4) KLT 222). Both the writ petitions were disposed of directing the parties to approach the Civil Court challenging the above notifications under Section 37(4)of the TCHRI Act. The 4th respondent Kshetra Samithi approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.26/2014.It was dismissed by the District Court on a preliminary issue holding that there was no proper notice as contemplated under Section 55 of the said Act.

6. In the meanwhile, some of the devotees of the temple approached the Honble Ombudsman by filing complaint No.37/2013 seeking relief that an adhoc committee may be constituted for the temple. A counter complaint was also preferred by the Hindu Aikya Vedi supporting the contention of the 4th respondent herein. It was contended that since three year period of appointment of the receiver was over, the temple may be entrusted back to the trust. Learned Ombudsman considered both the complaints together and dismissed the complaint of the Hindu Aikya Vedi.The devotees complaint was allowed and the matter was referred to the Division Bench. It was observed that an adhoc committee from among the devotees may be formed to help the administrative officer for the conduct of the temple festival and for helping him in the day to day administration, till a finality is attained with regard to the complete take over of the temple as per Section 37 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. This Court, by its judgment in DBP NO.14/2013 confirmed the report of the Ombudsman and held that an adhoc committee is to be constituted. Though adhoc committee was constituted pursuant to the above, Adhoc committee is also stated to be virtually defunct and not properly functioning. Alleging these, the writ petitioner in W.P(C).No.16946 of 2013 sought implementation of preliminary and final notifications dated 22/12/2008 and 8/10/2009 repectively. A relief in the nature of writ of mandamus was sought directing the respondents 1 to 3 to implement the above notification and to complete the proceedings of taking over possession and administration of the temple.

7. W.P.(C) No.25821/2013 and 34518/2014 are filed by the Ambattukavu Bhagavathi Kshetra Samithi. W.P.(C) No.25821/2013 was filed challenging the notifications of Devaswom Board dated 22/12/2008 and 8/10/2009. The premise on which the challenge is made is that the appointment of the receiver was for a period of three years and after its expiry, it has automatically come to an end and cannot survive thereafter. Hence, the petitioner prayed that a writ or order may be issued commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw from the management and superintendence of the temple and to restore the temple and its property to the Samithi.

8. In the meanwhile, another notification was issued by the Devaswom further extending the period of the earlier notification dated 20/11/2013. By that order, the period of receiver, which had expired after a period of three years, was extended for a further period of two years from 16/11/2012. In both the above writ petitions, the contention of the writ petitioner is that the above orders are not sustainable.

9. RFA No.161/2013 is filed by the Kshetra Samithi challenging the judgment and decree dated 19/11/2012 of the District Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.26/2010 by which on the preliminary issue, the court held that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of notice as contemplated under Section 55 of the Act.

10. W.P.(C) No.4018/2015 is filed by two persons claiming themselves to be the devotees of the temple alleging mal administration of the temple by the Trust during its tenure and that Ext.P4 representation in that proceedings submitted by the petitioners may be considered and appropriate action taken.

11. This Court in Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshethra Samithys case (supra), on an evaluation of the entire facts had held that when proceedings are taken under Section 37 and an order of assumption passed on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 37(1), any person aggrieved by it has a right to sue before the competent District Court in terms of Section 37(4) of the Act. That was a statutory right. Hence, the legislative intent was for an adjudication by the competent court that would ultimately result in a judicial decision and consequently the right to sue under Section 37(4) was a very valuable right. Further, even in terms of that provision, the order of assumption will become final subject to the result of the suit. Hence, in the normal course of proceedings and procedures, it is only through a suit under Section 37(4), could a decision for assumption under Section 37(1) be impeached. This right to have redressal through the judicial process cannot be nipped or crippled by the issuance of a notification, as if it were a composite one under Sections 37,41 and 42. The Division Bench, after evaluation of the above facts, concluded that the above notification will be treated only as an order issued under Section 37(1)(e) of the Act and the order therein that the present committee functioning by virtue of the Trust Deed shall stand dissolved and removed under Section 41 would stand stayed. Further,the direction to the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Vaikom to constitute a new temple advisory committee was also stayed. It was further directed that the District Court, before which any suit may be filed against the final notification, will be at liberty to treat the notification as only one as under Section 37 (1)(e) of the Act. The District Court was directed to consider the contentions of the rival parties and also to consider any application for interlocutory relief. It was further directed that the period of pendency of the writ proceedings will be considered by the District Court for exclusion of limitation. It was further directed that the suit shall be filed within a period of one month.

12. Thereafter, the suit was filed by Ambattukavu Kshetra Samithi as O.S.No.26/2010 before the District Court, Ernakulam within the time stipulated by this Court. In the written statement, the Devaswom Board, inter alia, raised a preliminary objection that notice under Section 55 of the TCHRI Act was not issued. Section 55 of the TCHRI Act provides that no suit shall be filed unless a notice in writing has been delivered at the office of the Board or the Executive Officer and until the expiry of two months after the notice in writing has been delivered. On an evaluation of the facts, District Court held that such notice had not been issued. Section 37(4) of the Act provided six months time from the date of publication of the order to institute the suit within the jurisdictional court. This Court had held that period of limitation during the pendency of the writ petition [W.P. (C)No.37390/2009] from 22/12/2009 till the date of issuance of the certified copy of the judgment in that case will be considered for the purpose of limitation. The District Court held that the Honble High Courts judgment only saved the limitation period and there was no whisper in the judgment of the High Court that the plaintiff was exempted from issuing the mandatory notice provided under Section 55 of the Act. Hence, it was held that the suit was not maintainable.

This is under challenge in RFA No.161/2013.

13. The above finding of the court below appears to be patently wrong for more reasons than one. Purpose of issuing statutory notices, which are normally provided under the various statutes, is to caution the public authority about the possibility of instituting the suit and to resolve it,if possible, without recourse to a litigation. This is also intended to enable the public authority to take remedial measures, if necessary, to avoid litigation in public interest. It is also intended to caution the public body which is otherwise engaged in multifarious activities to apply its mind on the cause of action and to take necessary action considering the possibility of inconvenience that may be caused to the public authority if an ex parte interim order is granted.

14. In fact, the suit was filed on the basis of the decision by the Division Bench. Hence, the suit was filed as permitted by the Division Bench. The Board was a party to the proceedings. Consequently, it had sufficient notice regarding the contentions, cause of action and the purpose of serving notice under Section 55 of the Act was virtually satisfied by making the Board a party to the writ proceedings. In the above circumstances, further notice was not required.

15. Further, the suit in the nature of the relief sought can be treated as a continuation of the writ proceedings. This contention was marshalled before the court below relying on the decision in Sringapuram Kombola Gouda Saraswath Brahmin Samooham Committee v. Cochin Devaswom Board (1965 KLT 723),which was not accepted by the court below.

16. There is yet another angle regarding the scope of a notice under Section 55 of the TCHRI Act, in the peculiar facts of this case.

The preliminary notification dated 22/12/2008 was issued under Section 37(1) and 38 of the TCHRI Act. By the above notification, objections were invited. The final notification was issued thereafter. That notification itself indicated that the authority had considered the objections pursuant to the preliminary notification under section 37(1) of the Act. After considering the various objections, the Devaswom Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to invoke Section 41 of the Act. The present committee was dissolved and removed invoking that Section. The Administrative Officer was directed to take charge.

17. A perusal of the final notification does not disclose the reason for the sudden shift in the procedure adopted by the authority which was originally initiated under Section 37(1) of the Act. Copy of that notification is produced as Ext.P4. The same copy is also produced by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34518/2014 as Ext.P3. Both are the photo copies of the gazette notification ROC No.24503/05/Suit, dated 8/10/2009. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34518/2014 has produced another copy of the original order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner which was forwarded for publication in the Gazette, obtained under RTI Act, marked as Ext.P8 in that writ petition.

18. Comparison of Ext.P8, which bears the signature of the Devaswom Commissioner with copies of notification published in gazette shows an omission in the G.O. The first sentence in the penultimate paragraph of the printed notification is I have seriously considered the objections and gone through the argument more appropriate and tenable. Evidently, this sentence does not make any sense. Patently, something is missing in that sentence. However, Ext.P8 shows the corresponding sentence as follows:

I have seriously considered the objections and gone through the argument notes,and it is found that for the interest of the Temple and the Karinganampally family, instead of invoking Section 37(e), the provisions under Section 42(1) is more appropriate and tenable.

(emphasis supplied).

19. Underlined portion indicates that this part of the sentence has been omitted to be printed in the Gazette. Ext.P8 notification clearly indicates a definite shift in the stand of the Devaswom commissioner. It shows that it was a conscious decision to abandon the proceedings initiated under Section 37(1) and to switch over to proceedings under Section 41 of the TCHRI Act.

20. Section 37(1) of the TCHRI Act deals with assumption of management of Hindu Religious Endowments by Board in the cases mentioned in sub clauses (a) to (e). Section 37(4) provides for the remedy available to a person aggrieved by an order of such assumption. Section 37(2) deals with another option available to the Board. The Board may, instead of assuming management, exercise superintendence in the management over any institution subject to sub section(3) by framing appropriate rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions contained in sub section(2). This shows that sections 37(1) and 37(2) of the Act operate in two different specific fields. Section 38 of the Act contemplates an enquiry prior to the exercise of power under section 37(1) or (2). Section 41 deals with the further action when Section 37(2) is exercised. It empowers the Board to remove or dismiss trustee or trustees, if necessary, in the best interest of the institution. It is clear from the above provision that Section 41 pre supposes the action under Section 37(2). Hence, it does not apply in a case where Section 37(1) is opted by the Board.

21. Since Sections 37(1) and 37(2) operate in two different fields and confer two different powers on the Board, which are in the nature of alternate options, after having initiated proceedings under Section 37(1), it cannot be abandoned in the midway and switched over to a proceeding under Section 41. This is primarily because Section 41 contemplates an exercise of power by the Board under Section 37(2) and not under Section 37(1) of the Act. After having noticed this distinction, this Court by the judgment in Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshethra Samithys case(cited supra) held that the final notification will be treated as a notice under Section 37(1) of the Act. It was held that such an order was susceptible to a suit under section 37(4). Since the final notice issued was a composite one, as noticed in that decision, judicial pronouncement alone clarified that, it would be treated as a notice under Section 37(1). After having issued a composite notice purported to be an exercise of power under section 41 of the Act, which deprived the aggrieved persons right to move the court by filing a civil suit, Devaswom Board cannot turn round and take up lack of notice as a defence. Further, the right to institute the suit was restored to the party only by the judicial pronouncement. While permitting the parties to move the district court within one month, it was clear that giving two months notice under section 55 was not practically possible. Evidently, this Court was conscious of this and consequently it can be held that this Court has impliedly exempted service of statutory notice.

22. The above facts and the legal position clearly show that the finding of the District Court on preliminary issue is not legally sustainable. That order is liable to be set aside and the suit is to be held as maintainable. Hence, RFA No.161/2013 is liable to be allowed. Natural consequence of it would be to revert the parties to the status as it existed as on the date of pronouncement of the judgment in Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshethra Samithys case (cited supra). The court below, in the light of the above, will have to proceed further, guided by the directions contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the above reported decision.

23. W.P.(C).No.16946/3016, is for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to give effect to Ext.P3 notification. In the light of the finding that final notification shall be treated as a notification under section 37(1) of the Act, no such direction can be issued. Hence, the writ petition is not sustainable at this stage and is liable to be dismissed.

24. W.P.(C) Nos.25821/2013 and 34518/2014 were filed by Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshethra Samithy.W.P.(C) No.28521/2013 was on a premise that the notification dated 8/10/2009 was for three years and hence it expired on 8/10/2012. A relief was sought in the writ petition to return the temple to the petitioners therein. In W.P. (C) No.34518/2014, the validity of a further notification dated 20/11/2013 in ROC No.11814/13/Suit extending the period of preliminary notification for a further period of two years was challenged. By virtue of the finding in RFA No.161/2013, the original notification dated 8/10/2009 is liable to be treated as a preliminary notice, legality of which was to be considered by the civil suit, all the subsequent notifications will stand superseded by this judgment. Accordingly, both the writ petitions W.P.(C)Nos.25821/2013 and 34518/2014) are disposed of.

25. W.P.(C) No.4018/2015 is filed by the local residents. According to them, they have filed Ext.P3 representation before the Board to take action to assess the loss caused due to the financial irregularities and misappropriation allegedly committed during the tenure of the superseded Board of Trustees and to take necessary action to recover it. In the light of the findings above, no such relief can be granted at this stage.

In the result, RFA No.161 of 2013 stands allowed. W.P.(C). Nos.16946 of 2013 stands dismissed. W.P.(C) Nos.25821 of 2013, 34518 of 2014 and 4018 of 2015 are disposed of. All the interim arrangements passed in all these proceedings will stand superseded by this judgment. Parties can approach the court below seeking appropriate interim reliefs and directions as may be required from time to time. The status quo as on the date of the judgment in Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshethra Samithys case (cited supra) will continue until further orders of the District Court. Parties shall appear before the District Court on 1/11/2016.