Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the Chief Executive of Chinmaya Educational and Cultural Trust, which is a Society registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882, which is functioning under the Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Mumbai, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014, Ext.P7 proceedings dated 02.05.2015 of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and Ext.P9 notice dated 27.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Board. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus staying further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3, P7 and P9.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the Trust was having a Bhajanamadam in Thrissur, close to eastern Pallithanam. In the year 1974, with a view to expand its religious and cultural activities, the Trust decided to take on licence, the property belonging to the 1st respondent Board, which was lying adjacent to the said Bhajanamadam. With the above intention, an agreement of licence was entered into between the Trust and the Board whereby the Board has entrusted a vacant land lying adjacent to the Bhajanamadam for an annual licence fee of Rs.101/-, to be paid at the end of every year to Vadakkumnatha Devaswom Office on obtaining a receipt for the same. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the copy of the licence deed dated 19.07.1974 executed by the 1st respondent Board in favour of Chinmaya Mission. As per Ext.P1 licence deed, Chinmaya Mission was permitted to construct the compound wall and also a hall and its necessary adjuncts in the property. It was agreed between the parties that the said hall will be used for religious and cultural purposes of Chinmaya Mission and for conducting marriages. It was further agreed that the said hall shall be made available to the 1st respondent Board free of cost for their religious and cultural activities and that subject to the convenience of Chinmaya Mission, the Board will make available the premises to accommodate pilgrims to Vadakkumnathan Temple as and when required. On the strength of Ext.P1 licence deed, Chinmaya Mission constructed permanent structures such as an auditorium and compound wall on the property. In the year 1975, Ext.P1 licence deed was renewed by executing Ext.P2 licence deed dated 25.03.1975 whereby the parties agreed to enhance the licence fee from Rs.101/- per annum to Rs.142/- per annum, with the very same stipulations as contained in Ext.P1. While so, the licence fee was further enhanced to Rs.227.25 per annum, which is being paid by Chinmaya Mission. Neither in Ext.P1 nor in Ext.P2, the period of licence has been mentioned. In the year 2014, the 1st respondent Board issued Ext.P3 proceedings, whereby the rate of licence fee was enhanced from Rs.227.25 per annum to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum. By the said proceedings, it was decided to incorporate a condition for renewal of the licence agreement in every three years. On receipt of Ext.P3 proceedings, Chinmaya Educational and Cultural Trust, the 2nd petitioner Trust, submitted Ext.P4 reply dated 29.10.2014. Subsequent to Ext.P4 reply, the 1st respondent Board arranged a meeting with the officials of the Trust. In the meeting held on 07.02.2015, it was decided not to review or reconsider the decision in Ext.P3 order, which was intimated to the Trust vide Ext.P5 letter dated 07.02.2015. On receipt of Ext.P5, the 2nd petitioner Trust submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 04.03.2015, making it clear that the unilateral decision taken by the 1st respondent Board vide Ext.P3 is illegal and against all legal norms. In Ext.P6, the Trust had expressed its willingness to pay a reasonably high licence fee. Vide Ext.P7 proceedings dated 02.05.2015, the 1st respondent Board reiterated its stand in Ext.P5 and the Special Tahsildar was directed to measure the property and submit a report within 15 days and thereafter, execute a fresh agreement with the Trust. Challenging the said order, the Chief Executive of the 2nd petitioner Trust approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.21303 of 2015. That writ petition was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P8 judgment dated 10.08.2020. In the said judgment this Court observed that in case Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust has got any justiciable cause, subject to the relevant provisions, it would be open to them to seek redressal of any such grievance. The said judgment reads thus:

"When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner also seeks liberty to file fresh writ petition to redress the grievance of Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust. The writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn and consequently, it is dismissed as withdrawn. In case the Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust got justiciable cause subject to the relevant provisions it would be open to them to seek for redressal of any such grievance."

3. After the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.21303 of 2015, the Chief Executive of the 2nd petitioner Trust received Ext.P9 notice dated 27.11.2020 of the 2nd respondent, who is the Secretary of the 1st respondent Board, whereby the Trust was directed to remit a sum of Rs.20,46,788/- towards arrears of licence fee at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs fixed in Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014, penal interest and GST, within a period of 14 days. Feeling aggrieved, the Chief executive of the 2nd petitioner Trust filed this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. On 06.01.2021 when this writ petition came up for admission before the learned Single Judge, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions. On 05.02.2021, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking an order to implead Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust (for brevity 'Chinmaya Educational Trust') as an additional petitioner and I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking an order to accept Ext.P10 minutes of the Board meeting of the Trust held on 26.12.2020 as Ext.P10. By the order dated 09.03.2021, those interlocutory applications were allowed. Based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that the matter is to be heard by the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters, the learned Single Judge, by the order dated 09.03.2021, directed Registry to post the matter before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit dated 28.09.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R1(A) and R1(B) documents, wherein it is stated that the 1st petitioner, who is the Chief Executive of the 2nd petitioner Chinmaya Educational Trust, challenged Exts.P3, P5 and P7 orders by filing W.P(C)No.21303 of 2015. As evident from Ext.P8 judgment dated 10.08.2020, the 1st petitioner herein sought permission to withdraw that writ petition and file a fresh writ petition to redress the grievances of Chinmaya Educational Trust. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court specifically ordered that, in case the Trust has got a justiciable cause, subject to the relevant provisions, it would be open to the Trust to seek redressal of any such grievance. Ext.P9 notice dated 27.11.2020 was issued in continuation of Ext.P3 notice dated 26.09.2014. Even though Exts.P3, P5 and P7 were challenged in W.P.(C)No.21303 of 2015, no relief was granted by this Court. So, the present writ petition is not maintainable and further, the petitioners do not have a justiciable cause. Exhibit P9 notice does not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioners so as to again approach this Court by filing this writ petition, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In the counter affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 have stated that, though the 2nd petitioner Trust claims that it was having a Bhajanamadam in Trichur close to the eastern Pallithanam, in the writ petition the Trust has not disclosed as to how it acquired the property. The Trust has also not disclosed the extent of property owned by it. Ext.P1 license agreement dated 19.07.1974 was executed between the 1st respondent Board and Chinmaya Mission, which was renewed on 25.03.1975, as evident from Ext.P2. As admitted by the Trust, there was no revision of the licence fee after the same was fixed at Rs.227.25/- per annum. Respondents 1 and 2 would deny the contention in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the licence is to be construed as a perpetual licence for a period of 99 years. As evident from Ext.P3, the licence fee was enhanced based on the objections raised by the Local Fund Audit. The document marked as Ext.R1(A) is a copy of the letter dated 04.12.2013 of the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Thrissur, in this regard. The Special Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, vide letter dated 13.10.2014 requested the Special Tahasildar, Land Conservancy Unit, Cochin Devaswom Board to measure the property belonging to the 2nd petitioner Trust. Based on that request, the Special Tahasildar submitted a report, vide Ext.R1(B) letter dated 11.09.2015 to the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Board, wherein it is reported that the 2nd petitioner Trust is presently in possession of an extent of53.348 cents in Survey No.251/1 of Thrissur Village.

7. In the counter affidavit by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the contention of the petitioners that the licence fee was enhanced by the Board unilaterally and without hearing the Trust is absolutely incorrect. In Ext.P4 reply dated 29.10.2014, the Trust has stated that they are willing to agree for a reasonable increase in the licence fee. In Ext.P6 letter dated 04.03.2015 also, the Trust has agreed for a reasonable enhancement of the licence fee upon mutual discussion and settlement. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the enhancement of the licence fee from Rs.227.25 to Rs.1.50 Lakhs is exorbitant and alarming, which is made without any basis. According to respondents 1 and 2, considering the importance of the area, the amount demanded by the 1st respondent Board is too low. Further, it cannot be disputed that the Trust is getting huge amounts when the hall is rented out for marriage and other functions. The Trust has also not disclosed the income generated from the hall. In fact, the licence fee of Rs.1.50 Lakhs is too low compared to the market rate. Though the Trust is fully aware of these facts, it has filed this writ petition unnecessarily, by raising a contention that it is a perpetual lease. It was considering the activities of the Trust, a reasonable amount of Rs.1.50 Lakhs was fixed for a period of three years. The Trust should be asked to produce its accounts so as to have a correct assessment of its income from the property in question. The Trust has not paid any amount as directed in Ext.P9. Therefore, the Trust cannot be permitted to use and occupy the licensed premises till the amount is paid. Even going by the admissions made by the Trust, the licence is revocable. Moreover, the 1st respondent Board is only acting as a trustee of the Devaswom land.

8. In the order dated 30.11.2022, this Court noticed the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (5) KHC SN 8 : 2022 (4) KLT 798], in view of the decision of this Court in Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65] [LQ/SC/1979/77 ;] .

9. On 12.12.2022, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking an order to accept an additional affidavit dated 12.12.2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking an order to accept Ext.P11 audited accounts of Chinmaya Educational Trust for the last 6 years as an additional document. In the affidavit filed in support of those applications, it is stated that the advent of Chinmaya Mission activities in Thrissur dates back to September 1957, when Swami Chinmayananda visited Thrissur to conduct the first Geethayagnam. The Ramavarma Bhajana Madam (Bhuvaneswari Temple) is situated on the northern side of Swaraj Round, Thrissur. This temple was constructed and owned by the Cochin Royal family and daily poojas were started in the temple from 1100 ME (AD 1925). The Chinmaya Yagna Committee spotted this temple for holding weekly study classes and Satsangs. Based on the request of the Chinmaya Yagna Committee, Swami Chinmayananda wrote a letter to Pareekshith Valiyathampuran, the Maharaja of Cochin, requesting to donate the Rama Varma Bhajana Madam to Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur. This was on 28.11.1960. The Maharaja of Cochin accepted the request of Swami Chinmayananda and Rama Varma Bhajanamadam was transferred in toto to Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur by a 'Thittooram' (Royal order) dated 30.03.1961, under Reference No.1 of 01.04.1961 with the palace seal. Therefore, the temple and surrounding land were given to Chinmaya Mission by the Maharaja of Cochin and not by the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. The Board has provided only the neighbouring land having a total extent of 13.5 cents. The then President of Chinmaya Mission, Puthezhath Raman Menon, received the temple on behalf of the Mission and thereafter the name of Rama Varma Bhajana Madam naturally got changed to Chinmaya Bhajanamadam. In the course of time, it was known more popularly at Thrissur as Sree Bhuvaneswari Navagraha Kshethram. As the mission activities progressed, which centered around the temple, it was felt that an additional area had to be found to hold the mission activities such as Satsangs, Vignanamandir classes for elders, Balavihars for children, Devigroups for ladies, Yuvakendra for youth, Kalamandir classes etc. The barren ground on the northern side of the temple owned by the Board was found suitable for constructing a prayer hall with necessary adjuncts for the Mission activities. Based on the request of Swami Chinmayananda, the Board allotted 6 cents of land lying adjacent to Bhajana Madam for constructing a hall, vide order No.R-2965/73 dated 16.02.1974. A licence agreement between Chinmaya Mission and the Board was executed on 19.07.1974. The licence fee was Rs.101/- per year. Additional 2.50 cents and 4 cents were further allotted by the Board, vide orders dated 13.12.1974 and 09.12.1975. A small piece of land was again provided on 21.02.1977. Thus, the total land allotted by the Board to Chinmaya Mission became 13.5 cents in toto. Chinmaya Mission constructed a Hall on the land assigned to it by the Board, and that hall is named as 'Neeranjali Hall'. The licence conditions were that, hall should be used only for religious and cultural purposes and for conducting marriages; and it should be given to Cochin Devaswom Board, for free, for accommodating pilgrims visiting Vadakkumnathan Temple. No validity period is mentioned in the agreement. There is no clause for hike in the licence fee. The licence fee was fixed by the Board on a pro-rata basis and the initial fee of Rs.101/- was raised to Rs.142/- and then to Rs.227.25 in 1976.

10. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022, it is stated that Chinmaya Educational Trust and Chinmaya Mission are not commercial establishments. Chinmaya Educational Trust is not making any surplus or profit from the rent occasionally received by leasing out this Hall for marriages, which is evident from Ext.P11 audited accounts for the last 6 years. Chinmaya Educational Trust conducts the following service projects at Thrissur; (i) Chinmaya Mission College, Kolazhi. Thrissur - The college was started in 1975 with 220 students. The College has now a strength of around 2500 students with a staff strength of around 100. (ii) Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Kolazhi - Chinmaya Vidyalaya was started with 20 students on 02.06.1979. The school now has a strength of around 1600 students with a staff strength of around 100. (iii) Chinmaya Balakrishna (Nursery), Kolazhi - (iv) Chinmaya Balanikethan (Hostel) - The school has girls and Boys hostel. (v) Chinmaya Kalamandhir - This was started in June 1979 with 9 students. The intention was to help the boys and girls to learn fine arts such as music, dance, painting, etc., at nominal fees. Classes on musical instruments such as Harmonium, Thabala, Veena, Flute, Mrudhangam, violin, guitar, etc., are provided at Kalamandhir. The student strength at Kalamandhir in December, 2022 is 366. There are altogether 12 teachers. (vi) Chinmaya Seva Nilayam, Kalladathur - 15 minutes' drive from Edappal Junction on the main road to Calicut was a plot of 4.9 acres of land with an ancestral house in it and these were being offered to Chinmaya Mission by Smt. P.T. Janaki Amma, sister of Justice P.T. Raman Nair. (vii) Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Kalladathur - A Primary School for the local residents was started in 1993. Over the years, higher classes were started. Presently the school is having around 350 students. (viii) Chinmaya Gosala - The Gosala at Kalladathur campus is having around 1500 cows and calves. (ix) Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust, Thrissur (CMECT) - With the expansion of mission activities, especially on the service projects such as the Vidyalaya College, temple, etc., it was found necessary to establish a Trust to manage the assets and manpower of the Trust. The spiritual activities such as the conduct of Vedanta classes, Balavihars, Devigroups and Chinmaya Yuvakendras are continued to be managed by Chinmaya Mission. The Chinmaya Educational Trust, Thrissur was registered under the Indian Trust Act on 31.12.1987. In the affidavit, it is stated that Neeranjali Hall is presently managed by the Trust. The hall is mainly used for religious and cultural activities like Satsangs, Vedanta classes, Balavihars, etc. It is given for marriages once in a while. There are only a very few takers at present since there is no parking space. Only low-budget marriages take place there. It is running on loss for the last so many years and the Trust is compensating it from the income generated from other units. Apart from that, the Hall is being given for free for the programmes of the Cochin Devaswom Board, as and when requested.

11. On 23.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department; the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit; and Thrissur Municipal Corporation represented by its Secretary were suo motu impleaded as respondents 3 to 5. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court a few photographs of the building in question. The photographs were placed on record as Ext.R1(C) series, along with a memo filed on 23.12.2022.

12. The additional 5th respondent Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.2023, wherein it is stated that the building seen in Exhibit R1(C) series of photographs produced by the Board, which is the subject matter in the writ petition, was inspected by the Overseer of the Corporation, who submitted Ext.R5(a) report. The said building is situated in Division No.36 of Thrissur Corporation in between Vadakkechira and Swaraj Round. The vehicular access to the said building is from the road situated by the side of Vadakkechira. A temple is situated in the property, adjacent to the building named "Neeranjali". The buildings, which are numbered 36/7241 (Neeranjali) and 36/7242 (temple), are seen included in the Assessment Register for the period from the year 1993 onwards. But the other details such as the plinth area and the year of construction are not available. The records concerning the grant of permit for the construction of the building and related matters are also not available at the office of the 5th respondent Corporation. Upon inspection, it was noted that a roof is constructed using roofing sheets over the open terrace of the building, for which no permission has been granted by the Corporation. An arch is seen constructed across the road situated in front of the building, at the end of the road, where it abuts the Swaraj Round. The road leading to the temple is not included in the Assessment Register of the Corporation. So also, no records are available to show that the said road has been surrendered to the Corporation. The Corporation has not granted any permission for the constructions made on the said road.

13. The additional 4th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit has filed a counter affidavit dated 02.03.2023, after verifying File Nos. R-9970/12 and R-62/2014 furnished by the Secretary of the Board. In the counter affidavit, the additional 4th respondent has stated that as per the licence agreement signed on 19.07.1974 between Cochin Devaswom Board and Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur, a plot lying adjacent to the Chinmaya Bhajana Madam is entrusted to Chinmaya Mission for an annual licence fee of Rs.101/-, in which the Board allowed the licensee to build a hall for conducting religious, cultural activities and marriage purposes. There are provisions in that agreement that the hall should be given free of charge to the Board for its religious and cultural activities, and subject to the convenience of Chinmaya Mission, the premises will be made available to accommodate pilgrims to Vadakkumnathan Temple, as and when required. The licence agreement was renewed on 25.03.1975, with the same provisions in the previous agreement, and the licence fee was enhanced from Rs.101/- to Rs.142/- per annum. The licence fee was further enhanced to Rs.227.25 per annum. The date on which that rate came into force is not available in the records of the Board. Vide letter No.LF(CD)D/2721/2013 dated 04.12.2013, the additional 4th respondent informed the Board that, since Rs.227.25 is still being charged as the licence fee and the wedding hall is running in profit and earning Rs.30,000/- per day, the licence fee has to be revised reasonably. Thereafter, the Board convened a meeting with the Chief Executive of Chinmaya Educational Trust on 17.02.2014. In that meeting, the Board informed the Chief Executive about the necessity of a timely increase of the licence fee and the signing of a new agreement. The Chief Executive informed that he will present this matter to the Chinmaya Educational Trust and the decision of the Trust in this matter will be informed to the Board. The Board by order No.R-62/14 dated 12.03.2014 directed the Chief Executive to inform the decision of the Trust without delay. In reply No.CMECT/ADM/75/1722 dated 28.03.2014, the Chief Executive of Chinmaya Educational Trust stated that all constructions in the concerned land are done by the Trust at their own expense and they conduct only religious and cultural activities in these buildings. Therefore, Chinmaya Educational Trust requested the Board to increase the licence fee reasonably. The Board decided to conduct another meeting with Chinmaya Educational Trust, on 02.06.2014. But that meeting does not appear to have taken place. As per the 13th decision of the Board meeting dated 17.09.2014, Cochin Devaswom Board decided to enhance the licence fee to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum and renew the agreement every 3 years. Despite several correspondences and a meeting held on 26.11.2014 between the two parties, there was no significant progress in this matter until the petitioners moved to this Court.

14. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner Trust built a multistoried hall named 'Neeranjali' in the Devaswom land. This hall is rented out for marriage functions and other activities. Rs.50,000/- is currently charged for marriage. Moreover, this land is situated in the prime location of Thrissur town, i.e., just a few meters away from Swaraj Round and Vadakkumnathan Temple. That increases its commercial value. The land of such commercial importance has been used by the petitioners in abovesaid manner since 1974, by remitting a meagre amount as the licence fee, i.e., 227.25 per annum, which is not reasonable. After referring to the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (5) KHC SN 8 : 2022 (4) KLT 798], the additional 4th respondent would point out that, considering the above aspects, the Board's decision No.13 dated 17.09.2014 increasing the licence fee to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum is only reasonable. The Government of Kerala has issued 'the Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas (Amendment) Rules, 2016, vide G.O.(P)No.64/ 2016/RD dated 28.01.2016 (SRO.No.96/2016) fixing the lease rent of Government land. As per this rule the rent for land leased out to institutions purely of commercial value and occupying above 400 sq.m. is 5% of the market value of land per annum. Rent for lands leased out to individuals or institutions for running social and charitable purposes above 400 sq.m. is 2% of the market value of the land per annum.

15. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2023, the petitioner has placed on record Exts.P12 to P16 documents. In the affidavit filed in support of that application, it is stated that the Maharaja of Cochin, accepting the request of Swami Chinmayananda, transferred in toto Ramavarma Bhajanamadam to Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur by Ext.P12 'Thittooram' (Royal order) dated 30.03.1961 under Reference No.1 of 01.04.1961 with the palace seal. A readable copy of that Thittooram' is produced marked as Ext.P12(a). Thereafter, the Cochin Devaswom Board vide Ext.P13 order No.R 2965/1973 dated 16.02.1974 allotted 6 cents of land lying adjacent to Bhajanamadam for constructing a Hall. Another 2.50 cents of land was allotted by the Cochin Devaswom Board by Ext.P14 order No.R 2965/1974 dated 13.12.1974; another 4 cents vide Ext.P15 order No.R2965/73 dated 09.12.1975; and another small bit of land vide Ext.P16 order No.R.2965/1973 dated 21.02.1977.

16. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4, and also the learned Standing Counsel for Thrissur Municipal Corporation for the 5th respondent.

17. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the enhancement of the licence fee for the land in question from Rs.227/- per annum to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum is exorbitant and alarming, which is made absolutely without any basis. The licence fee fixed in the year 1974 in Ext.P1 licence deed dated 19.07.1974 was Rs.101/- per annum, which was enhanced in the year 1975 to Rs.142/- per annum in Ext.P2 licence deed dated 25.03.1975. Thereafter, the licence fee was further enhanced to Rs.225.25 per annum. In Ext.P6 reply dated 04.03.2015, the 2nd petitioner Trust has expressed its willingness to pay a reasonably high licence fee. Relying on Ext.P11 audited accounts of Chinmaya Educational Trust, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that considering the meagre income generated from the buildings constructed in the property in question the exorbitant enhancement of the licence fee from Rs.227.25 per annum to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum vide Ext.P3 proceedings of the 1st respondent Board cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the entrustment of Ramavarma Bhajanamadam to Chinmaya Mission is vide Ext.P12 Thittooram (Royal Order) dated 30.03.1961. The allotment of Devaswom land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom on lease to Chinmaya Mission is vide Ext.P13 order dated 16.02.1974, Ext.P14 order dated 13.12.1974, Ext.P15 order dated 09.12.1975 and Ext.P16 order dated 21.02.1977. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the nature of transactions is an irrevocable licence.

18. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Local Audit Department would contend that no interference is warranted on Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014 of the 1st respondent Board whereby the rate of licence fee of the property in question was enhanced from Rs.227.25 per annum to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the only document available in the files of the 1st respondent Board regarding Exts.P13 to P16 orders, whereby a certain extent of the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom was leased out to Chinmaya Mission, is the copy of those orders. No other documents are seen in the relevant files. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the fixation of the licence fee at Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum for the land in question cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The learned Standing Counsel would point out the objection raised by the Local Fund Audit in the year 2013 regarding the fixation of the licence fee for that Devaswom land and also the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out the Government Order dated 28.01.2016 referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the additional 4th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit regarding fixation of lease rent of Government land based on the market value of the land. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the enhancement of the licence fee by Ext.P3 proceedings was in view of the objections raised by the Local Fund Audit.

19. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin.

20. Section 62A of the Act, inserted by Act 14 of 1990, deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 62A, all immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties. The provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. As per Section 62B, all unassigned lands belonging to the Devaswom under the sole management of the Board shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to such lands.

21. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub- section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be met from the said fund.

22. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees.

23. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1st day of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department.

24. Section 86 of the Act provides that alienation of property without sanction of Board void. As per sub-section (1) of Section 86, any exchange, sale, mortgage, pledge, lease or other alienation of the property of an institution executed or made or any debt contracted on its behalf, shall be void unless it is executed or made or contracted with the previous sanction of the Board or with the previous sanction of the Civil Court when in any suit, appeal or other proceedings in relation to the institution a Receiver has been appointed by the civil court for the management of the properties of the institution. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 86, the court shall before granting or refusing such sanction give notice to the Board and hear the objections, if any, of the Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 86, the Board may prefer an appeal to the High Court from the order passed by such court within thirty days of the order and such appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of not less than two Judges. As per sub-section (3) of Section 86, any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of publication of the order in the Gazette and such appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of not less than two Judges. As per sub-section (4) of Section 86, every order of the Board under sub-section (1) shall be published in the Gazette.

25. In M.V. Ramasubbair v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65] [LQ/SC/1979/77 ;] , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus;

"4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it."

(underline supplied)

26. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] [LQ/SC/2007/913] 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 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.

27. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132] [LQ/KerHC/2013/862] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] [LQ/SC/2007/913] 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 is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings.

28. In Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022:KER:6409] [judgment dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C)No.2254 of 2022] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimha- swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, for Rs.2,41,000/-. The average monthly income generated from the said building constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board by spending several lakhs of rupees was only Rs.10,000/-. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65] [LQ/SC/1979/77 ;] this Court held that, while auctioning the right for running that sadyalayam, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income to the Board is generated from the said building. In case of any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the balance auction amount, electricity charges or any other statutory dues payable as per the tender conditions, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have to take prompt action against such bidder and the said fact has to be promptly reported to the concerned officer in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

29. In Abu K.S. [2022:KER:6409] the writ petitioner, the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In such circumstances, in the said decision, this Court deprecated in the strongest words the conduct of the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer and also the concerned officers in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking no action against the successful bidder, who was a defaulter. In the said decision, this Court found that the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. Since such irregularities in the conduct of auction for running auditoriums/ sadyalayams in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate suo motu proceedings in the matter.

30. In Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ILR (2022) 1 [LQ/KerHC/2021/1017] Ker 1091 ] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with the Kuthaka right for sale of pooja items in Valliamkavu Devi Temple under the Management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said decision, this Court held that, the properties of deities and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment 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 officers concerned and also the devotees should be 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 usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. If any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner.

31. In V. Muraleedharan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2015:KER:49207] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the writ petitioners were occupiers of different shop rooms in a shopping complex owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Exhibit P8 series of orders, they have been required to enhance the security deposit and the amounts to be paid for occupation. Before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment dated 07.10.2013 in W.P.(C)No.25586 of 2012. The Division Bench noticed that said judgment was issued essentially on the consent of the Board and the concession made by the Board was only for renewal for a period up to 2012. Therefore, the said judgment is no answer for any demand that the Travancore Devaswom Board may make in relation to occupation charges for buildings or rooms belonging to and under its control. The Division noticed that it cannot also ignore the pristine principle that all Devaswom lands vest in Deities and Travancore Devaswom Board are essentially trustees. Therefore, the action of trustees cannot be equated to that of mere landlords. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Devaswom Boards would be subserved only if income is generated.

32. In T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (4) KLT 798 : 2022 (5) KHC SN 8], a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, held that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Abu K.S. [2022:KER:6409], relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65] [LQ/SC/1979/77 ;] , while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of mere landlord. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Board would be subserved only if income is generated.

33. In T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798], the Division Bench noticed that the major source of revenue of the Cochin Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the buildings owned by the respective Devaswoms. Therefore, while dealing with the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms is not lower than the prevailing market rent. The action of the Board in demanding lease rental or licence fee for the buildings owned by the Devaswoms taking into consideration the prevailing market rent cannot be termed as an action of the Board demanding exorbitant or rack- rent, since, while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. Any default committed by the tenant or licensee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms in payment of the monthly rent or licence fee, electricity charges, water charges, statutory dues, etc. has to be dealt with appropriately, so also the use of the building for another purpose or making material alteration or addition to the building. In view of the provisions under Section 73A of the Act, the Cochin Devaswom Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed.

34. In Cochin Devaswom Board v. Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4050 : 2022:KER:40635] DBP No.31 of 2022 was 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 applicant, i.e., the Cochin Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary filed Petition No.3 of 2022 before the learned Ombudsman, seeking permission to conduct exhibitions and trade fairs in Thrissur Pooram exhibition ground in Thekkinkad Maidan, during the period other than Thrissur Pooram exhibition. In the order dated 29.07.2022 in that DBP, this Court noticed that Cochin Devaswom Board is facing an acute financial crisis due to Covid- 19 pandemic and other reasons. The specific stand taken by the Board before the learned Ombudsman was that, around Rs.9 to 12 Crores is required for meeting the monthly expenses for the rituals in the temples and wages of the employees. In view of the continued fall in income, the Board has to explore the means to diversify its finances to augment the income and tide over the crisis. Therefore, in the 34th meeting of the Board held on 30.09.2021, it was decided to seek permission from this Court to conduct exhibitions and trade fairs in Thrissur Pooram exhibition ground in Thekkinkad Maidan, during the period other than Thrissur Pooram exhibition. Considering the fact that Cochin Devaswom Board is facing acute financial crisis due to Covid-19 pandemic and other reasons, this Court granted permission to the Board to conduct Onam exhibition/trade fair in Thrissur Pooram exhibition ground in Thekkinkad Maidan, for the year 2022, subject to the conditions stipulated in that order.

35. In the instant case, the allotment of the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom to Chinmaya Mission on the basis of Ext.P1 licence deed is for the purpose of constructing a hall for religious and cultural purposes and also for conducting marriages, subject to the conditions stipulated in that agreement. The allotment of land was based on Exts.P13 to P16 orders of the 1st respondent Board, produced by the petitioner along with I.A.No.1 of 2023. The document marked as Ext.P12 is a 'Thittooram' (Royal order) dated 30.03.1961 of the Maharaja of Cochin transferring in Ramavarma Bhajanamadam to Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur, accepting the request of Swami Chinmayananda. A readable copy of that Thittooram' is produced marked as Ext.P12(a). As per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023, the Cochin Devaswom Board vide Ext.P13 order No.R 2965/1973 dated 16.02.1974 allotted 6 cents of land lying adjacent to Bhajanamadam for constructing a Hall. Another 2.50 cents of land was allotted by the Board vide Ext.P14 order No.R 2965/1974 dated 13.12.1974. Another 4 cents of land was allotted by the Board vide Ext.P15 order No.R2965/73 dated 09.12.1975. Another small bit of land was allotted by the Board vide Ext.P16 order No.R.2965/1973 dated 21.02.1977. Going by the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, the total land allotted by the Board to Chinmaya Mission comes to 13.5 cents.

36. Ext.P13 order dated 16.02.1974 of the Cochin Devaswom Board refers to a letter dated 16.09.1973 of Swami Chinmayananda, a petition dated 02.10.1973 of the President of Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur and a report dated 13.12.1973 of the Devaswom Commissioner. In Ext.P13 there is no reference to any decision taken by the Board on the request made in the letter dated 16.09.1973 of Swami Chinmayananda and the petition dated 02.10.1973 of the President of Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, any exchange, sale, mortgage, pledge, lease or other alienation of the property of an institution executed or made or any debt contracted on its behalf, shall be void unless it is executed or made or contracted with the previous sanction of the Board.

37. Ext.P14 order dated 13.12.1974 of the Board refers only to Ext.P13 order dated 16.02.1974. It also refers to another Board order dated 18.04.1974, whereby it was ordered that there is no necessity to leave sufficient space at the northern end of 6 cents of land covered by Ext.P13 order for providing a 12ft. wide pathway since there is no necessity for a pathway. In Ext.P14 order it is provided that for 2½ cents of land allotted to Chinmaya Mission, the annual contribution will be fixed on a pro-rata basis. By Ext.P15 Board order dated 09.12.1975, Chinmaya Mission, Thrissur was allotted land having an extent of 4 cents, based on a petition dated 09.12.1975 made by the Secretary of Chinmaya Mission, subject to the condition that the licence fee will be fixed on a pro-rata basis. By Ext.P16 order dated 21.02.1977 a 'small bit' of land lying vacant on the eastern side of the new building being constructed was allotted to Chinmaya Mission, based on a petition dated 07.01.1977 of its Secretary, subject to the condition that the licence fee will be fixed on a pro-rata basis. In Exts.P15 and P16 there is no reference to any decision taken by the Board on the request made by the Secretary of Chinmaya Mission in his letters dated 09.12.1975 and 07.01.1977.

38. By the order dated 31.03.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Exts.P13 to P16 orders. In the order dated 03.04.2023, this Court noticed the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that the officials of the Board could not trace out the files relating to Exts.P13 to P16 orders. A copy of those proceedings finds no place in the files maintained by the Board as File Nos. R9970/12, R62/2014 and R16746/13 relating to Chinmaya Educational Trust.

39. The additional 4th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit filed a counter affidavit dated 02.03.2023, after verifying File Nos. R-9970/12 and R- 62/2014 furnished by the Secretary of the Board. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that Ext.P1 licence agreement dated 19.07.1974 was renewed on 25.03.1975, with the same provisions, and the licence fee was enhanced from Rs.101/- to Rs.142/- per annum. The licence fee was further enhanced to Rs.227.25 per annum. The date on which that rate came into force is not available in the records of the Board. Since the licence fee charged is only Rs.227.25 and the wedding hall is running in profit and earning Rs.30,000/- per day, the Deputy Director vide letter dated 04.12.2013 informed the Board that the licence fee has to be revised reasonably.

40. On 17.02.2014, the Board convened a meeting in which the Chief Executive of Chinmaya Educational Trust was informed about the necessity of a timely increase of the licence fee and the signing of a new agreement. The Chief Executive informed the Board that he will present the matter in the Trust and the Board will be informed about the decision of the Trust. Later, the Board vide letter dated 12.03.2014 requested the Chief Executive to inform the decision of the Trust without delay. The Chief Executive submitted a reply dated 28.03.2014, stating that all constructions in the land are made by the Trust, at its own expense and the Trust conducts only religious and cultural activities in the building. Therefore, the Trust requested the Board to increase the licence fee reasonably. Though it was decided to have another meeting on 02.06.2014, that meeting does not appear to have taken place. Later, the Board decided in its meeting held on 17.09.2014 to enhance the licence fee to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum and renew the agreement every 3 years. Despite several correspondences with the Trust and a meeting held on 26.11.2014, there was no significant progress in the matter.

41. In the counter affidavit filed by the additional 4th respondent Deputy Director, it is stated that the Trust constructed a multistoried hall named 'Neeranjali' in the Devaswom land, which is rented out for marriage functions and other activities. Rs.50,000/- is currently charged for marriages. The land is situated in a prime location in Thrissur town, just a few meters away from Swaraj Round and Vadakkumnathan Temple. That increases its commercial value. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (5) KHC SN 8 : 2022 (4) KLT 798] the Board's decision No.13 dated 17.09.2014 increasing the licence fee to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum is only reasonable.

42. On 30.06.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions on the basis for fixation of the licence fee at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum in Ext.P3 order dated 26.09.2014. On 04.07.2023, the learned Standing Counsel made available for the perusal of this Court File No.R 62/14 (2) regarding the fixation of the licence fee at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum. As evident from the file notes, the additional 4th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit informed the Board that the licence fee of Rs.227.25 has to be revised reasonably since Chinmaya Educational Trust is running an auditorium for conducting marriages in the multi-storied building constructed in the land in question, with a daily rent of Rs.30,000/-. In the discussion held on 07.06.2014, it was decided to revise the licence fee with reference to the market value of the land and issue a notice to Chinmaya Educational Trust. In File No.R-62/2014(2), it is noted that the market value of the land is around Rs.1 Crore per Are. If the extent of Devaswom land in the possession of Chinmaya Educational Trust is taken as 5 Ares, the licence fee at 2% of the market value for that extent of land comes to Rs.10 Lakhs per annum.

43. The assessment of the licence fee at the rate of 2% of the market value of the land per annum was on the ground that for Government lands above 400 sq.m leased out within Municipal and Corporation areas to individuals or institutions for social and charitable purpose, the rate of rent shall be 2% of the market value of the land per annum, and the market value will be reviewed every three years. In the counter affidavit, the additional 4th respondent Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Cochin Devaswom Board Audit has pointed out the amendment made to sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules for Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Area, 1995, vide G.O.(P)No.64/2016/ RD dated 28.01.2016, whereby the annual lease rent fixed vide G.O.(P)No.126/2004/RD dated 14.05.2004 was revised. As per the said Rules, the rent for Government land leased out to institutions purely of commercial value and occupying above 400 sq.m. is 5% of the market value of land per annum and that for land leased out to individuals or institutions for running social and charitable purposes above 400 sq.m. is 2% of the market value of the land per annum. Prior to that amendment, the annual lease rent for the land leased out to individuals or institutions purely for commercial nature was 10% of the market value and that leased out to institutions for the promotion of cultural activities or tourism and club of all types was 2.5% of the market value. As evident from the explanatory note to G.O.(P)No.126/2004/RD dated 14.05.2004, the then prevailing annual lease rent was 20% of the market value when the land is used for commercial purposes and 10% of the market value when the land is used for non- commercial purposes.

44. Though in File No.R-62/2014(2) it is noted that the market value of the land is around Rs.1 Crore per Are and the licence fee at 2% of the market value for the land having an extent of 5 Ares comes to Rs.10 Lakhs per annum, it was proposed in the file notes that the licence fee of the land can be revised to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum, considering the position of Chinmaya Educational Trust in society and without adversely affecting the financial position of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The aforesaid proposal was placed before the Special Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, who recommended the revision of the licence fee and execution of a fresh agreement after measuring the land and preparing a sketch. When the file was placed before the Board, it was noticed that Chinmaya Educational Trust is earning profit by using the building for commercial purposes. However, the Board decided that, instead of fixing the licence fee at the market value of the land as per the Government orders in force, the annual licence fee can be fixed at Rs.1.50 Lakhs, since the licence fee at the prevailing rate is very low. Based on the said decision taken by the Board on 14.08.2014, Ext.P3 Board order dated 26.09.2014 was issued, whereby the rate of licence fee was enhanced from Rs.227.25 per annum to Rs.1.50 Lakhs per annum and to execute an agreement with Chinmaya Educational Trust, after preparing a sketch of the land and incorporating a condition for renewal of the licence agreement in every three years.

45. The request made by Chinmaya Educational Trust for reconsideration of the said decision was rejected by the Board on 04.12.2015 and 24.04.2015, as evidenced by Ext.P5 order dated 07.02.2015 and Ext.P7 order dated 02.05.2015. Since Chinmaya Educational Trust defaulted payment of the licence fee, the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Board issued Ext.P9 notice dated 27.11.2020 to the Chief Executive of the Trust, whereby the Trust was directed to remit a sum of Rs.20,46,788/- towards arrears of licence fee at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs fixed in Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014, penal interest and GST, within a period of 14 days.

46. The document marked as Ext.P11 is a copy of the accounts of Chinmaya Educational Trust for the last 6 years, i.e., for the period from 2015-16 to 2021-22, which includes the income and expenditure in respect of Neeranjali Hall. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022, it is stated that Chinmaya Educational Trust and Chinmaya Mission are not commercial establishments.

47. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that Chinmaya Educational Trust is not making any surplus or profit from the rent occasionally received by leasing out this Hall for marriages, which is evident from Ext.P11 accounts for the last 6 years. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022, Neeranjali Hall is mainly used for religious and cultural activities like Satsangs, Vedanta classes, Balavihars, etc. It is given for marriages once in a while. There are only a very few takers at present since there is no parking space. Only low-budget marriages take place there. It is running on loss for the last so many years and the Trust is compensating it from the income generated from other units. Apart from that, Neeranjali Hall is being given for free for the programmes of the Cochin Devaswom Board, as and when requested.

48. The fact that the property of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom having an extent of 13.5 cents covered by Exts.P13 to P16 orders is located a few meters away from Swaraj Round in the heart of Thrissur Town and Vadakkumnathan Temple is not in dispute. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the road in front of Neeranjali Hall is not having direct access to Swaraj Round, though it is only a few meters away from Swaraj Round and Vadakkumnathan Temple. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that in Ext.P6 reply dated 04.03.2015 the 2nd petitioner Trust has expressed its willingness to pay a reasonably high licence fee for the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom.

49. The land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom, covered by Exts.P13 to P16 orders, is having commercial importance since it situates a few meters away from Swaraj Round and Vadakkumnathan Temple. The said fact is not in dispute. The entry to Neeranjali Hall is from Cochin Devaswom Board Junction, another place in Thrissur Town having commercial importance, via Vakkikkat road. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65] [LQ/SC/1979/77 ;] and this Court in T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798 : 2022 (5) KHC SN 8] while leasing out the land owned by Vadakkumnathan Devaswom, after complying with the requirements of Section 86 of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials ought to have ensured that proper rental income is generated from the said land. In such a transaction, the Board and its officials ought to have shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of a mere landowner, since the best interest of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom would be subserved only if proper rental income is generated from the said Devaswom land.

50. In the decision in Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4050 : 2022:KER:40635] this Court noticed that the specific stand taken by the Cochin Devaswom Board before the learned Ombudsman that around Rs.9 to 12 Crores is required for meeting the monthly expenses for the rituals in the temples under the management of the Board and towards the wages of the employees.

51. When the major source of revenue of the Cochin Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offerings by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the land and building owned by the respective Devaswoms, while dealing with such land and building, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the land and building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by fixing ground rent, lease rental or licence fee taking note of the prevailing market rate, with provision for periodical revision. Any default committed by the licensee or tenant in the payment of monthly/annual licence fee or monthly rent, electricity charges, water charges and other statutory dues has to be dealt with appropriately, so also the use of the land or building for another purpose, making material alteration or addition to the building, etc. In the exercise of the statutory duty under Section 73A of the Act, the Board is duty- bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and the employees are taking prompt action against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the licence deed or the lease deed.

52. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014 of the 1st respondent Board whereby the rate of licence fee of the property covered by Exts.P13 to P16 was enhanced from Rs.227.25 per annum to Rs.1.50 lakhs per annum; Ext.P7 proceedings dated 02.05.2015 of the Board whereby the stand taken in Ext.P5 letter dated 07.02.2015 not to review or reconsider the decision in Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014 was intimated to the 2nd petitioner Trust; and Ext.P9 notice dated 27.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Board, whereby the Trust was directed to remit a sum of Rs.20,46,788/- towards arrears of licence fee at the rate of Rs.1.50 lakhs per annum, penal interest and GST, within a period of 14 days.

53. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is for the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to recover the arrears of licence fee in terms of Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014 and Ext.P9 notice dated 27.11.2020 by initiating appropriate proceedings, if found necessary, by initiating proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act in terms of the G.O.(P)No.22/2021/RD dated 09.02.2021 published in Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No.668 dated 11.02.2021. The 1st respondent Board shall take necessary steps to fix the licence fee in respect of the land covered by Exts.P13 to P16 orders, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798 : 2022 (5) KHC SN 8] and also the law laid down in this judgment, with notice to the 2nd petitioner Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

54. In view of the provisions under Chapter XI of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the audit of accounts of the Cochin Devaswom Board and every institution under the management of the Board shall be made by the additional 4th respondent Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, who is in charge of Cochin Devaswom Audit. The provisions under Chapter XI provide for an order of surcharge against the Board or the member, as the case may be, in case of misappropriation or willful waste of the fund or of gross neglect resulting in a loss to the incorporated or unincorporated Devaswoms or institutions under the management of the Board. After completing the audit for a year or for a shorter period or for any transaction or series of transactions, the 4th respondent Deputy Director shall submit audit report before this Court of the accounts of the Board and of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under the management of the Board. In such circumstances, in this proceedings this Court is not considering the legality or otherwise of the decision taken by the 1st respondent Board in Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.09.2014 limiting the enhancement of the licence fee of the land covered by Exts.P13 to P16 orders to Rs.1.50 lakhs per annum. It is also made clear that in this judgment this Court has not considered the validity of Exts.P13 to P16 orders whereby a certain extent of the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom was leased out to Chinmaya Mission. In view of the facts noticed by this Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 of this judgment and also the stand taken by the 1st respondent Board before this Court that other than the copy of Exts.P13 to P16 orders, no other documents are seen in the relevant files, we deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent Board to conduct an enquiry by the Chief Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police), Cochin Devaswom Board in the matter relating to leasing out the land of Vadakkumnathan Devaswom to the 2nd petitioner Trust and take necessary action, if found necessary, based on the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer. It is also made clear that in this judgment this Court has not expressed anything on the contentions raised by the petitioners placing reliance on Ext.P12 'Thittooram' (Royal order) dated 30.03.1961.