Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a devotee of Major Vellayani Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 6th respondent Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board to see that the directions contained in Ext.P4 order dated 10.02.2023 specifying the role of the 4th respondent, who is the Moothavaathi (Chief Priest) in conducting the festival is complied with, in letter and spirit. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Sub Group Officer to strictly enforce the directions contained in Ext.P4 in letter and spirit; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Board and the 6th respondent Devaswom Commissioner to take necessary action against the 4th respondent Moothavaathi (Chief Priest) and the 5th respondent Elayavaathi (Junior Priest) for flouting the directions in Ext.P4.

2. On 14.03.2023, when this matter came up for admission, the petitioner was directed to file an application to implead the Temple Advisory Committee of Major Vellayani Devi Temple as an additional respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions.

3. By the order dated 15.03.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, the Temple Advisory Committee of Major Vellayani Devi Temple was impleaded as the additional 7th respondent. By the said order, this Court admitted the writ petition on file and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1, 3 and 6. Urgent notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 2, 4, 5 and also to the additional 7th respondent, returnable by 17.03.2023. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions.

4. By the order dated 01.06.2023, I.A.No.2 of 2023 filed by third parties seeking an order to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents stands allowed however, without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioners, if found necessary, to file a counter affidavit refuting any allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of that interlocutory application.

5. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.03.2023, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(p) documents.

6. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 23.03.2023, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(c) documents. Paragraph 12 of the said counter affidavit reads thus;

“12. It is submitted that the presence of the Tantri is required in the temple on the festival day and on special occasions only. The mode of worship, poojas and the rituals in connection with the festival are formulated by Kelan Kulasekhara Vathi as per the ‘Kaulachara’ form of worship and the same is followed in the temple from time immemorial. The Tantri is not conversant with the above poojas and rituals. The Tantri is expected to conduct Ganapathy Homam, Remedial measures, etc. if any suggested, to be conducted in the temple, the day-to-day poojas and the rituals connected with the festival are done by the Mootha Vathi and Elaya Vathi subject to the control of the department.”

7. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.03.2023, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(j) documents. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 26.03.2023, producing therewith Exts.R2-A to R2-K documents. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 30.05.2023 to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1, 3 and 6.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and its official respondents and also the respective counsel for the party respondents.

9. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the conduct of ‘Kaaliyoottu’ Maholsavam in Major Vellayani Devi Temple, which is conducted once in every three years.

10. In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party held that in view of the provisions of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in Vellayani Devi Temple are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in Vellayani Devi Temple for the devotees. Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Vellayani Devaswom and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in Vellayani Devi Temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under subsection (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage.

11. In Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 491], the Division Bench reiterated the law laid down in Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee [2023 (2) KHC 290], by holding that the writ petition cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to include Kuzhithalachal and Kalluvila Wards in Vellayani in the list for Kalliyoor Dikkubali in Major Vellayani Devi Temple, in violation of the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial.

12. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for some of the party respondents are with specific reference to clauses (4) and (5) of Ext.P4 order dated 10.02.2023 issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. The said clauses read thus;

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, Nirapara/Iraki Pooja in connection with Kaaliyoottu Maholsavam in Major Vellayani Devi Temple has to be conducted as per the traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in that temple. The Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that Nirapara/Iraki Pooja in Major Vellayani Devi Temple is conducted not in violation of the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial. The Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules (Bye-laws) framed by the Travancore Devaswom Board under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, who are duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals, according to the usage, cannot insist that Nirapara/Iraki Pooja in connection with Kaaliyoottu Maholsavam has to be conducted by including areas in violation of the accepted boundary limit followed from time immemorial.

14. Going by the customary practice prevalent in Major Vellayani Devi Temple, during procession in connection with Kaaliyoottu Maholsavam, ‘Thankathirumudi’ has to be carried either by Moothavaathi (Major Priest) or Elayavaathi (Junior Priest). In case, either the Moothavaathi or Elayavaathi is having any health issues or any disabilities in carrying Thankathirumudi during Kaaliyoottu Maholsavam, it is for the 6 th respondent Devaswom Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the alternate arrangement to be made, without in any manner violating the customary practice being followed in the temple.

15. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.