Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Sunil Kumar C. And Ors v. The Travancore Devaswom Board And Ors

Sunil Kumar C. And Ors v. The Travancore Devaswom Board And Ors

(High Court Of Kerala)

W.P.C)NO.7421 OF 2022 | 25-05-2022

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioners are the devotees of Lord Subrahmanya, the deity of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, a temple under the management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. Some of them are members of ‘registered mandalam’ for electing the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to constitute a Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, in accordance with Ext.P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, notified on 30.01.2011, forthwith; a declaration that the ‘Koothambalam’ of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, which is a historical monument in existence for the past 150 years cannot be demolished, renovated or altered without the approval or concurrence of the Temple Advisory Committee to be constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and that, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee as well as its members, namely, respondents 6 to 10, are not vested with any power to demolish, renovate or alter the Koothambalam of the temple; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to prevent the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee as well as its members, namely, respondents 6 to 10, from proceeding with the demolition, alteration or renovation of the Koothambalam of the temple, till the said work is approved by the Temple Advisory Committee; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith prevent collection of donations by the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee as well as its members, namely, respondents 6 to 10, from the devotees and general public in connection with the renovation or alteration of the Koothambalam of the temple; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Haripad, to consider and act on Ext.P5 representation dated 28.02.2022 submitted by the 1st petitioner and other devotees, in accordance with law, with notice to them, expeditiously.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is against the constitution of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, after the expiry of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which is entrusted with the renovation of the Koothambalam. The term of the Temple Advisory Committee elected in March, 2017, expired on March, 2019. The term of the said Committee was extended by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner for a period of one year. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Board granted extension for a further period of one year, which expired on March, 2021. Without constituting a new Temple Advisory Committee, the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner constituted the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee for renovation of the Koothambalam from among the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, which was in office continuously for a period of four years.

3. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee has put up boards in temple premises, requesting the devotees to contribute generously for the renovation of the Koothambalam, as evident from Ext.P2(a) photograph. In violation of the provisions under Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees, respondents 5 to 10 are collecting money from the devotees, inside the temple, without issuing any receipts. The amounts collected from the devotees are noted in a notebook. No special circumstances exist in the temple to invoke the provisions under Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules, for constituting an Ad-hoc Committee, in the place of a Temple Advisory Committee under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The procedure adopted by respondents 2 to 4, while constituting the Ad-hoc Committee with respondents 6 to 10 as its members, who were the members of the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years, is arbitrary and illegal and the action of respondents 2 to 4 is tainted with malafides. In support of the said contentions, the petitioners would rely on Ext.P3(a) reply dated 19.11.2021 received under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. For constituting a Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, the devotees submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 25.01.2022 before the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer. The said representation was followed by Ext.P5 representation dated 28.02.2022 before the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, with a request to proceed with the repair or renovation work of the Koothambalam only after the constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee.

4. On 07.03.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 to 10, returnable by 09.03.2022. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions.

5. On 09.03.2022, respondents 5 to 10 entered appearance through counsel and sought time to file counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to file statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. While granting two weeks' time for filing statement by respondents 1 to 4 and for filing counter affidavit by respondents 5 to 10, this Court ordered that status quo as on that date shall be maintained in respect of the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, till the next posting date. On 16.03.2022, the order of status quo was extended by four weeks.

6. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 30.03.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, which was followed by a statement dated 06.04.2022 filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Respondents 5 to 10 have filed a counter affidavit dated 28.03.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 29.03.2022 to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10.

7. On 07.04.2022, heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10. On 17.05.2022 the matter was listed as 'to be spoken to' since we noticed that the orders referred to in Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021 and certain other orders referred to in out order dated 17.05.2022 are essential for a proper disposal of this writ petition. On 17.05.2022 the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the orders dated 28.10.2020 and 09.04.2020 referred to in Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner and also the order of the Devaswom Commissioner granting approval to the Temple Advisory Committee in the year 2017, and the order granting extension of term in the year 2019, shall be placed on record by 20.05.2022.

8. On 20.05.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board has placed on record the documents referred to in the order dated 17.05.2022, along with a memo dated 20.05.2022. Heard further arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, instead of constituting the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee was constituted by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, based on the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner. Respondents 6 to 10, who are members of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee, were the elected members of the Temple Advisory Committee, continuously for a period of four years. The renovation or repair work of the Koothambalam cannot be undertaken without the approval or concurrence of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act. Respondents 2 to 4 have to take necessary steps for the constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee and the renovation or repair work of the Koothambalam has to be undertaken by that Committee.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4 contended that, based on the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner constituted the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee for undertaking the renovation of the Koothambalam. The order of the 2nd respondent is one issued invoking the provisions of Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees, which is perfectly legal. The 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner proposes to convene the general meeting of ‘registered mandalam’ in order to elect the members to the Temple Advisory Committee. The constitution of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee with respondents 6 to 10, who were the members of the Temple Advisory Committee which was holding office for the last four years, is for the limited purpose to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

11. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 contended that, the constitution of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee with respondents 6 to 10 as its members is for undertaking the renovation work of the Koothambalam, which is perfectly legal. The construction or repair work that has to be undertaken in a temple is outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. As stated in the counter affidavit, the constitution of the 5th respondent Ad- hoc Committee by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, invoking his powers under Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees, for the purpose of undertaking renovation of the Koothambalam, based on the 'Anunja' obtained on 104.03.2021, is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in this writ petition.

12. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 and that filed by respondents 5 to 10 is that, the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, is in a dilapidated condition, which requires renovation. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10, it is stated that, the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, which was built in the year 1769, is the only structure which survived the fire outbreak in the temple in the year 1921. The Koothambalam is a unique architectural heritage, which needs to be conserved. The details of the temple and Koothambalam are available in 'Travancore Archaeological Series' published under the orders of the erstwhile Government of Travancore in the year 1927. Due to passage of time the structure has severe defects, which are to be rectified. The proposed maintenance work is without disturbing the existing structure and its archaeological value. A devotee by name Sri Nidhish Kumar N. had filed Complaint No.273 of 2016 before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, seeking a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board for renovating the Koothambalam. In that complaint, the learned Ombudsman passed Ext.R10(A) order dated 15.05.2017 directing the authorities to take necessary action in the matter. However, due to shortage of funds and want of administrative sanction, the renovation of the Koothambalam was prolonged for several years. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10, it is stated that, the petitioners are not against the renovation of the Koothambalam. According to them, the renovation of the Koothambalam has to be carried out by the Temple Advisory Committee formed under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and not by the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee. Therefore, the fact that the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, requires renovation is not in serious dispute.

13. The pleading and materials on record would show that, the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board initially granted administrative sanction for the renovation work of the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, for Rs.16,95,000/-, on condition that the Temple Advisory Committee will carry out the work at their own cost, as evidenced by Ext.R1(d) communication dated 08.10.2020 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board.

The Chief Engineer, vide letter No.1342 dated 23.11.2021, submitted a revised estimate for Rs.51,00,000/-, which was prepared based on Delhi Schedule of Rates-2016, after evaluating the present status of the structure. The Temple Advisory Committee expressed their willingness to execute the work on full contribution basis, for which they demanded sealed coupons for collecting contributions.

14. As discernible from Ext.R1(b) proceedings dated 07.12.2021 of the 1st respondent Board, the Chief Engineer recommended to cancel the administrative sanction already granted for Rs.16,95,000/- and reported that the execution of the work has to be carried out under strict supervision of the field officials of the Maramath Department. The Chief Engineer suggested that necessary agreement shall be executed between the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara and the Temple Advisory Committee. The Chief Engineer also recommended to issue sealed coupons for Rs.51,00,000/- for collecting contributions from the devotees.

15. Based on the recommendations made by the Chief Engineer, the 1st respondent Board vide Ext.R1(b) order dated 07.12.2021, accorded sanction to execute the work at a revised estimate cost of Rs.51,00,000/- by the Temple Advisory Committee, on full contribution, under strict supervision of the field officials of the Maramath Department, in cancellation of the estimate already sanctioned for Rs.16,95,000/-. The Board has authorised the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara to execute necessary agreement with the Temple Advisory Committee. The Board has accorded sanction to seal coupons worth Rs.20,40,000/- (40% of the entire estimate amount), initially. The remaining amount will be sanctioned subject to audit and after assessing the progress of the work.

16. The document marked as Ext.R1(c) is a true copy of the agreement dated 18.02.2022 executed between the president and Secretary of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee, the 8th and 10th respondents herein, on one part, and the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara, on the other part. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee, after the execution of Ext.R1(c) agreement, started preliminary preparations and works for renovation of the Koothambalam.

17. As already noticed, the 1st respondent Board granted administrative sanction for the renovation work of the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, for Rs.16,95,000/-, on condition that the Temple Advisory Committee will carry out the work at their own cost, as evidenced by Ext.R1(d) communication dated 08.10.2020. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee elected in March, 2017, expired in March, 2019. The term of the said Committee was extended for one year, for carrying out the renovation of the Koothambalam, which was extended for a further period of one year (six months each). The Temple Advisory Committee submitted Ext.R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021 before the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer, wherein it is stating that, though the Committee made preliminary preparations for the renovation work of the Koothambalam, after the administrative sanction granted by the 1st respondent Board and obtained ‘Anunja’ of the Deity, the work could not be proceeded further due to spread of Covid-19, and the term of the Committee had expired. Therefore, a request was made in Ext.R1(e) to permit the Temple Advisory Committee to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

18. Ext.R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021, which is in the letter head of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, bears the signatures of the 8th and 10th respondents herein, as the President and Secretary of the Committee. The extended term of the Temple Advisory Committee expired on 12.03.2021 much prior to the submission of Ext.R1(e) request. The document marked as Ext.R1(f) is a true copy of the letter dated 01.03.2021 of the Thantri, whereby the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner was informed that ‘Anunja’ ceremony prior to the commencement of the renovation work of the Koothambalam is scheduled on 04.03.2021.

19. On the constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner called for a report from the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer. The 4th respondent, vide Annexure R1(g) communication dated 16.07.2021, reported to the 3rd respondent his inability to conduct election to the Temple Advisory Committee due to spread of Covid-19. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, vide Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021, forwarded Ext.R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021 to the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, pointing out the condition of the Koothambalam. Reference No.(2) in Annexure R1(h) communication is order No.ROC.6097/2021/NS dated 09.04.2021 issued from the office of the Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the functioning of the Temple Advisory Committee was stopped. It is also stated in the said communication that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee was extended by order No.ROC.2612/2020/NS dated 28.10.2020, for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. In Annexure R1(h), the 4th respondent recommended the formation of an Ad-hoc Committee with the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

20. After considering the recommendation made by the 4th respondent Sub Group Office in Annexure R1(h), the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner forwarded Ext.R1(a) report dated 22.07.2021 to the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, recommending the constitution of an Ad-hoc Committee with seven members from the Temple Advisory Committee, to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam. Vide Ext.R10(B) communication dated 04.08.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner was informed about the decision taken by the Board to constitute an Ad-hoc Committee for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. Since the term of the Temple Advisory Committee had expired, the 3rd respondent was directed to constitute a seven member Ad-hoc Committee with the Assistant Commissioner, Sub Group Officer and persons who are interested in the affairs of the temple and forward the list to the Board for its approval. A copy of Ext.R10(B) communication was marked to the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer.

21. On receipt of Ext.R10(B) communication, the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer, along with Ext.R10(C) communication dated 16.08.2021, forwarded the list of the persons to be included in the Ad-hoc Committee to the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, consisting of the Assistant Commissioner, Sub Group Officer and five persons who are interested in the affairs of the temple, elected from the devotees [as stated in Ext.R10(D)(2)]. The said five devotees are respondents 6 to 10, who were in the Temple Advisory Committee, continuously for a period of 4 years. The 3rd respondent forwarded the said list to the Deputy Commissioner along with his report dated 17.08.2021. Based on the recommendation made in the said report, the Deputy Commissioner granted approval for the Ad-hoc Committee, vide Ext.R10(d) proceedings dated 06.09.2021, and a copy of the approved list [Ext.R10(D)(2)] was enclosed along with the said proceedings.

22. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, for respondents 1 to 4, and also the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 contended that, as evidenced by Ext.R10(B) communication of the Deputy Commissioner, the constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee is for the purpose of completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam and it is not an extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, as alleged by the petitioners. In Annexure R1(i) letter dated 18.10.2021 addressed to the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, the Thantri pointed out the condition of the Koothambalam and requested the Board to undertake the renovation work at the earliest. The wood required for the work has been changed from anjili to teak wood, based on the suggestions of the Thachan of the Board, and the revised estimate was prepared by the Chief Engineer. As provided in Ext.R1(b) proceedings dated 07.12.2021 of the 1st respondent Board, the renovation work has to be undertaken under strict supervision of the field officials of the Maramath Department. Considering the urgency, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee was constituted, invoking the provisions under Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules, for the purpose of completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that, the formation of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee for a specific purpose does not mean that no Temple Advisory Committee will be constituted by respondents 1 to 4. In view of the changed circumstances on account of Covid-19 pandemic, respondents 1 to 4 are ready and duty bound to conduct election to the Temple Advisory Committee, in a time bound manner.

23. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10, it is stated that, immediately after the approval granted by Ext.R10(D) proceedings dated 06.09.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, a meeting of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee was convened on 06.10.2021, for entrusting responsibilities to its members, as evidenced by Ext.R10(E) minutes. In the said meeting it was decided to convene a general body of the devotees on 24.10.2021. The general body convened on 24.10.2021 was attended by 47 devotees, in which several decisions were taken for the renovation of the Koothambalam, as evidenced by Ext.R10(F) minutes. As directed in Ext.R1(b)/Ext.R10(G) proceedings dated 07.12.2021, Ext.R10(H) agreement dated 18.12.2021 was executed between the Ad-hoc committee and the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara. As decided in Ext.R10(F) minutes, the Ad-hoc committee obtained Ext.R10(I) detailed report dated 19.12.2021 from the Thachan of the Board, for executing the renovation work. The Temple Carpenter, submitted Ext.R10(J) proposal dated 22.12.2021 with the details of the work, timings and rate of wages.

24. After getting Ext.R10(I) report from the Thachan of the Board, another general body was convened on 04.01.2022, in which several decisions were taken, as evidenced by Ext.R10(K) minutes. One decision taken in the said general body was for availing the service of Smt.Gopika Jayasree, who had conducted study about the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, as part of her thesis, while doing M.Arch Course at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, in the year 2016. Her study report contains even minute details of the Koothambalam, its structure, the details of pillars, etc. After making all arrangements, the official inauguration of the work was arranged on 09.01.2022, as evidenced by Ext.R10(L) notice.

25. Since the renovation work was officially inaugurated and all arrangements have been made for starting the work, a 'panthal' covering the entire Koothambalam has to be constructed, to protect the materials including wooden articles from rain. In the meeting of the Ad-hoc Committee held on 22.01.2022 it was decided to invite quotations for the construction of the 'panthal', as evidenced by Ext.R10(M) minutes. In the meeting held on 10.02.2022 it was decided among other things to print coupons of various denominations for an amount of Rs.20,40,000/-, as per the sanction granted by the 1st respondent Board in Ext.R1(b)/Ext.R10(G) proceedings dated 07.12.2021. Another meeting of the Ad-hoc Committee was convened on 27.02.2022, as evidenced by Ext.R10(O) minutes, in which it was decided to give quotation for the 'panthal'. Based on that decision, Ext.R10(P) agreement dated 28.02.2022 was executed between one Shafeek and the Secretary of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee. For undertaking maintenance, repair or renovation work in a temple or Koothambalam the permission from the Deity has to be obtained by the Thantri. Accordingly, ‘Anunja’ ceremony was conducted in the temple and ‘Anunja’ was given to respondents 6 to 10 for performing the renovation work of the Koothambalam, as stated by the Thantri in Ext.R10(Q) statement dated 14.03.2022. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10, it is stated that, the renovation work of the Koothambalam is going on with strict supervision of the Maramath Department of the Board.

26. Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub- section (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name ‘Temple Advisory Committee’ (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed Ext. P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board (for brevity, ‘Ext.P1 Rules’).

27. Clause (2) of Ext.P1 Rules, which deals with objectives of the Temple Advisory Committees, reads thus;

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

28. As per Clause (2) of Ext.P1 Rules one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department.

29. Clause (3) of Ext.P1 Rules, which deals with membership, reads thus;

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

30. Clause (3) of Ext.P1 Rules makes it explicitly clear that the membership in ‘registered mandalam’ is mainly for the devotees who are residing within a distance of 5kms from the temple, who are regular worshipers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of Ext.P1 Rules deal with class of persons who are entitled to get membership.

31. In Santharam Roy T.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (2) KHC 595 (DB)] this Court held that, the provisions under Clause (3) of Ext.P1 Rules makes it explicitly clear that the membership in ‘registered mandalam’ is mainly for the devotees who are residing within a distance of 5 kms from the temple, who are regular worshipers and had contributed considerably for the betterment of the temple and the devotees. Sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (3) of the Rules deal with class of persons who are entitled to get membership. For constituting the Temple Advisory Committee, the devotees will have to be enrolled as members of ‘registered mandalam’. The election of members to the Temple Advisory Committee is made from among the members of ‘registered mandalam’ present in the meeting convened by the Assistant Commissioner of the Group, as provided under Clause (5) of the Rules.

32. Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, which deals with term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee, reads thus;

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

33. As per Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the Committee by the Department. The Devaswom Commissioner is empowered to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year on the ground of any development works or unavoidable rituals. On the aforesaid grounds the 1st respondent Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended beyond two years.

34. In Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2021 (3) KHC 379] a Division Bench of this Court held that, with the insertion of Section 31A to the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples has become statutory. In the said decision, the Division Bench noticed that, the Travancore Devaswom Board, in exercise of the rule making power under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, has framed rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board and this Court has approved the draft bye-laws by the order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No. 153 of 2009. Clause (11) of the Rules deals with the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee. As per Clause (11), the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner has the authority to extend the term of the committee by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board will have the power to extend the term by a further period of one year. The term shall not to be extended beyond the period of two years. Thus, the term of the committees is statutorily fixed. The term can be extended by one year or up to two years under certain unavoidable circumstances and no longer. The object of providing duration of office of Temple Advisory Committees in the approved bye-laws is to see that timely elections are held and the constitution of the Committees are not delayed. The power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, which is fixed as per the approved bye-laws, shall not be exercised as a matter of course. They shall call for report regarding the developmental work going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple concerned and apply their mind to the materials and form a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not.

35. Clause (12) of Ext.P1 Rules, which deals with powers and rights of the Devaswom Board, reads thus;

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

36. As per Clause (12) of Ext.P1 Rules, the Devaswom Commissioner shall have the power to determine the members of the Committee on the basis of specific reasons. In the event of the activities of the Advisory Committee being contrary to the interest of the Temple, Hindu faith or the Devaswom Board, or in the event of specific financial irregularities, the Commissioner shall have the absolute power to remove the Advisory Committee.

37. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 is that, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a Temple under the management of the 1st respondent Board is outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. Insofar as the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 is concerned, as per Clause (2) of Ext.P1 Rules, one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute the same with the approval of the Board. Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules provides that, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of the Committee by the Department. The Devaswom Commissioner is empowered to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of one year on the ground of any development works or unavoidable rituals. On the aforesaid grounds the 1st respondent Board can extend the term for a further period of one year. Clause (11) makes it explicitly clear that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended beyond two years.

38. Clause (9) of Ext.P1 Rules deals with office bearers and their duties. Clause (9.1) deals with President, Clause (9.2) deals with Vice President, Clause (9.3.) deals with Secretary and Clause (9.4) deals with Treasurer. Clause (9) of the Rules reads thus;

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

39. As per Clause (9) of Ext.P1 Rules, one among the duties of the President, as provided in Clause (9.1), is to formulate projects for the betterment of the temple and for the convenience of the devotees and implement the same with the approval of the Board. The President has to supervise the collection of funds at the initiative of the Advisory Committee and he has to ensure that the functioning of the Committee is in accordance with the directions issued by the 1st respondent Board. As per Clause (9.3), the Secretary of the Committee has to get the approval of the Department for collection of funds. He has to print coupons and keep it in safe custody after obtaining the seal of the Assistant Commissioner. He has to ensure that such coupons are used only as per the permission granted by the Board. The Secretary has to cause the accounts relating to collection of funds, income and expenditure audited which shall be produced before the authorities in the Board before 30th April of every year. As per Clause (9.4) of Ext.P1 Rules, the Treasurer has to ensure that proper accounts are maintained for the income and expenditure and that the income and expenditure of the Advisory Committee is with the approval of the Committee and with the knowledge of the President and the Secretary.

40. A reading of the provisions under Clause (9) of Ext.P1 Rules make it explicitly clear that the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. It would certainly be open to the Travancore Devaswom Board to undertake such construction, repair or renovation work in a temple, directly by its Maramath Department. However, when the Board has chosen to undertake such construction or repair or renovation work in a temple through a committee, under the supervision of the officials in Maramath Department, it has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act, under constant supervision and scrutiny by the concerned officers of the 1st respondent Board, in order to ensure that the activities of the committee is in compliance with the directions issued by the Board. When the provisions under Section 31A of the Act contemplates constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee in the temples under the management of the Board, which is assigned with various duties as per Ext.P1 Rules, which includes undertaking various developmental activities in the temple, the normal rule is that any developmental activity in a temple, which is not undertaken directly by the 1st respondent Board through its officials in the Maramath Department, has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee. In view of the provisions contained in Clause (2), Clause (9) and Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, and also the law laid down by this Court in Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379], we find that the construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a Temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act.

41. Relying on Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 would contend that, the the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, after obtaining approval from the 1st respondent Board, can take a decision not to constitute Temple Advisory Committee in any temple, in case there is practical difficulties in constituting such a committee in that temple. Clause (21) provides further that in special circumstances any other Samithi functioning in the Devaswoms can be approved in the place of Temple Advisory Committees and the power to grant such approval shall vest with the 1st respondent Board.

42. Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules, which deals with special powers of the Devaswom Board, reads thus;

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

43. A reading of the provisions under Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules make it explicitly clear that the said provisions can be invoked only in the case of a temple in which there is any practical difficulty for the formation of a Temple Advisory Committee, in which event, the 1st respondent Board is vested with the power to approve any other committee functioning in that temple, considering the special circumstances prevailing in that temple. The provisions under Clause (21) would not enable the 1st respondent Board or the 2nd respondent Commissioner to approve an Ad-hoc Committee, in the place of a Temple Advisory Committee, for the purpose of undertakingconstruction or repair or renovation work in a temple.

44. Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules, which deals with prohibitions, reads thus;

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

45. Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules prohibits the Temple Advisory Committee from collecting funds in connection with any ceremonies in the temple by placing kanikkavanchi or hundies. When coupons are printed for development activities in the temple, with the approval of the Department, only coupons for the specified amount shall be printed. No receipts without the seal of the Assistant Commissioner shall be used for collecting funds. Therefore, the provisions under Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules provide sufficient safeguards to prevent illegal collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee for development activities in a temple. As per Clause (18), a person who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be eligible to continue as such continuously exceeding the term of two committees.

46. As already noticed hereinbefore, as per Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval of election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The said provision is subject to the condition that the term of such a committee can be extended for a period of one year by the Devaswom Commissioner on account of any development activities or unavoidable rituals in the temple. For the aforesaid reasons, the 1st respondent Board is authorised to grant extension for a further period of one year. However, in view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11), the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be extended for more than two years. Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules also contains a prohibition to the effect that a person who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be eligible to continue as such continuously exceeding the term of two committees. In view of the prohibitions contained in Clause (11) and Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules, a person, who was an office bearer or a member of a Temple Advisory Committee for a period of two years and continued as such for a further period of two years either on his re-election to the Advisory Committee or on account of the extension of term granted by the Devaswom Commissioner for a period of one year and further extension for a period of one year by the 1st respondent Board, on account of any development work or unavoidable rituals in the temple, is not legally entitled to continue either as a member of the Temple Advisory Committee or as its office bearer, after the period of four years from the date of approval of the election granted by the Devaswom Commissioner.

47. The question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether an office bearer or a member of a Temple Advisory Committee, who has completed the maximum term of four years, i.e., the initial term of two years followed by extension of term by one year each by the Devaswom Commissioner and thereafter by the 1st respondent Board, on account of any development work or unavoidable ritual in the temple can be the office bearer or even a member of an Ad-hoc Committee formed for undertaking any development work in the temple. Before considering the above aspect it has to be considered whether the extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, granted by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner for a period of one year and the further extension granted by the 1st respondent Board for another one year (six months each), is in conformity with the provisions under Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules.

48. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10 is that, for undertaking maintenance, repair or renovation work in a Temple or Koothambalam the permission from the deity has to be obtained by the Thantri, for which 'Anunja' ceremony has to be conducted in the temple. Along with the memo dated 20.05.2022 filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, a copy of communication No.ROC4351/17/NS2 dated 13.02.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner, addressed to the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner is placed on record, whereby the Deputy Commissioner granted approval to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, based on the report dated 02.03.2017 of the Assistant Commissioner. In view of the provisions under Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the office of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be two years from the date of approval, i.e., till 12.03.2019. Thereafter, based on the report dated 05.02.2019 of the Assistant Commissioner, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee was extended for a period of one year, on condition that after the expiry of the said term, steps shall be taken to constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee.

49. On 26.02.2020 the Devaswom Commissioner submitted a report before the 1st respondent Board, based on the recommendation made by the Assistant Commissioner, for extending the term of the Temple Advisory Committee. By communication No. ROC. 2612/20/NS   dated 11.03.2020, the Devaswom Commissioner was informed that, the 1st respondent Board has taken a decision to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a period of six months from 11.03.2020, since the Chithira Ulsavam is scheduled to commence on 14.04.2020 and taking note of the renovation work of the Koothambalam. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report dated 14.09.2020, before the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner, vide communication No.ROC.4351/17/NS-2 dated 14.10.2020, recommended extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a further period of six months, i.e., up to 12.03.2021, considering the fact that though six months extension was granted for undertaking the renovation works of Koothambalam, the Temple Advisory Committee could not undertake that work due to spread of Covid-19, and also to make preparations for Chithira festival scheduled to commence on 14.02.2021. Based on the recommendation made by the Devaswom Commissioner, the 1st respondent Board, vide communication No.ROC.2610/20/NS dated 28.10.2020, granted extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee for a period of six months i.e., upto 12.03.2021 for completing the
renovation work of the Koothambalam and to make preparations for Chithira festival scheduled to commence on 14.04.2021.

50. Vide communication No.ROC.6097/2021/NS-2 dated 09.04.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner was informed that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee in Haripad Devaswom was extended for a period of one year by the Devaswom Commissioner and for a further period of one year by the 1st respondent Board. As per Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot be extended further. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was informed that the Board has already taken a decision for the formation of a new Temple Advisory Committee in Haripad Devaswom.

51. By Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021 of the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer, Annexure R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021 of the Secretary and President of the Temple Advisory Committee to permit the Committee to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam was forwarded to the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner. Based on the recommendation made by the Assistant Commissioner in his report dated 22.07.2021, the Deputy Commissioner vide Ext.R10(B) communication dated 04.08.2021 informed the Assistant Commissioner, the decision taken by the Board to form a seven-member Ad-hoc Committee with Assistant Commissioner, Sub Group Officer and persons who are interested in the affairs of the Temple for the purpose of
completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

52. The case of respondents 1 to 4 and also that of respondents 5 to 10 is that, after the expiry of the original term of two years, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee was extended for a period of one year for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. The term was further extended for one year by the 1st respondent Board, for the very same reason. The extended term expired on 12.03.2021 and the functioning of the Temple Advisory Committee was stopped, as evidenced by the communication dated 09.04.2021 of the Devaswom Commissioner, which is reference No.(2) in Annexure R1(h) communication. A copy of the communication dated 09.04.2021 is produced along with the memo dated 20.05.2022 filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

53. As already noticed hereinbefore, the original term of the Temple Advisory Committee expired on 12.03.2019, which was extended for a further period of one year by the Deputy Commissioner, as evidenced by communication dated 11.02.2019, on condition that after the expiry of that term, steps will have to be taken to constitute a new Temple Advisory Committee. Thereafter, the term of the committee was extended for a further period of one year (six months each), i.e., till 12.03.2021, as evidenced by communications dated 11.03.2020 and 28.10.2020 of the 1st respondent Board addressed to the Devaswom commissioner, for the purpose of completing renovation work of the Koothambalam and also for taking preparatory steps for Chithira festival. Few days before the expiry of the term, 'Anunja' ceremony was conducted on 04.03.2021, as evidenced by Annexure R1(f) letter dated 01.03.2021 of the Thantri, whereby permission of the deity was obtained by the members of the Temple Advisory Committee to commence the renovation work of the Koothambalam. After the expiry of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, Annexure R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021 was made before the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer, based on the 'Anunja' obtained on 04.03.2021. Annexure R1(e) request was forwarded to the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021, which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, along with Ext.R1(a) report dated 22.07.2021, with a recommendation for constituting an Ad-hoc Committee with seven members of the Temple advisory Committee, to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

54. As evidenced by Annexure R10(B) communication dated 04.08.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, the 1st respondent Board has taken a decision to constitute an Ad-hoc Committee for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. Since the term of the Temple Advisory Committee had expired, the 3rd respondent was directed to constitute a seven member Ad-hoc Committee with the Assistant Commissioner, Sub Group Officer and persons who are interested in the affairs of the temple and forward the list to the Board for its approval. On receipt of Ext.R10(B) communication the 3rd respondent forwarded a list of persons to be included in the Ad-hoc Committee, consisting the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and Sub Group Officer and five persons who ar interested in the affairs of the Temple, from the devotees of the temple. The said five persons are respondents 6 to 10, who were in the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years. Based on the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner granted approval to the Ad-hoc Committee, vide Ext.R10(D) proceedings dated 06.09.2021.

55. When the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner called for a report from the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer on the constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, vide Annexure R1(g) communication dated 16.07.2021, the 4th respondent reported his inability to conduct election to the Temple Advisory Committee due to the spread of Covid-19. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that after the formation of the Ad-hoc Committee a general body of the devotees was convened on 24.10.2021 and thereafter, on 04.01.2022. As such, there was absolutely no justification on the part of the 4th respondent in submitting a report before the 3rd respondent, expressing his inability to conduct election to the Temple Advisory Committee, due to spread of Covid-19. The formation of an Ad-hoc Committee, in the place of Temple Advisory Committee, is only to see that respondents 6 to 10, who have already completed the maximum term of four years in the Advisory Committee, are included in the Committee formed for the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

56. Though the extension granted to the Temple Advisory Committee, after expiry of its original term of two years, for a period of one year by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner and for a further period of one year by the 1st respondent Board, was for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam, the pleadings and materials on record would not show as to whether the Temple Advisory Committee has commenced any development activity in connection with the Koothambalam, before the expiry of its original term of two years. It is also not discernible as to whether any such development activity was commenced by the Temple Advisory Committee, within the extended term of one year. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the extension of term granted by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, for one year after the expiry of the original term of two years, is without further extension of one year term (six months each) granted by the 1st respondent Board, invoking its powers under Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, is also vitiated by total non-application of mind, since at the time of granting such extension by the Board, respondents 6 to 10, who were the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee, have not obtained 'Anunja' from the Deity for commencing the renovation work of the Koothambalam. On the basis of the extension of the term granted by the 1st respondent Board, the Temple Advisory Committee continued and just before the expiry of the one year term, an 'Anunja' ceremony was conducted on 04.03.2021, as evidenced by Annexure R1(f) letter dated 01.03.2021 of the Thantri. On the strength of that 'Anunja', Annexure R1(e) request dated 15.07.2021 was made before the 4th respondent, much after the expiry of the maximum term of four years, seeking permission to undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam. It was based on the aforesaid request, which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent vide Annexure R1(h) communication dated 21.07.2021 and recommended by the 3rd respondent in Ext.R1(a) report dated 22.07.2021 submitted to the 2nd taken to constitute an Ad-hoc Committee for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam.

57. Respondents 1 to 4 or respondents 5 to 10 have absolutely no case that prior to the issuance of Ext.R10(B) communication dated 04.08.2021 constituting an Ad-hoc Committee, the Temple Advisory Committee which was in office till 12.03.2021 had undertaken any development activity in connection with the renovation work of the Koothambalam. They have absolutely no case that, before conducting 'Anunja' ceremony on 04.03.2021, any permission was obtained from the 1st respondent Board for undertaking the development activity, namely, the renovation work of Koothambalam, on the revised amount of Rs.51,00,000/- on full contribution basis or after collecting contributions by sealed coupons issued by the Assistant Commissioner.

58. As evidenced by Annexure R1(d) communication dated 08.10.2020, the Administrative sanction originally granted with an estimated cost of Rs.16,95,000/- was on condition that the Temple Advisory Committee will carry out the work at their own cost. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer submitted a revised estimate along with his letter dated 23.11.2021 for Rs.51,00,000/-, after evaluating the present status of the structure and thereafter, the 1st respondent Board vide Ext.R1(b)/Ext.R10(G) proceedings dated 07.12.2021 cancelled the administrative sanction in Annexure R1(d) and accorded sanction to execute the work at the revised rate of Rs.51,00,000/-. A reading of Ext.R10(G) order would make it explicitly clear that, till the date of that order, i.e., 07.12.2021, there was no occasion for respondents 6 to 10, who obtained 'Anunja' on 04.03.2021, to enter into any agreement with the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara, for executing any development work in connection with the Koothambalam. Therefore, conclusion is irresistible that the formation of an Ad-hoc Committee by Ext.R10(D) order dated 06.09.2021 is not for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam, but for commencing the said work.

59. As already noticed, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (2) and Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act.

The term of the Temple Advisory Committee is two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner, who has the authority to extend the term by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board has the power to extend the term by a further period of one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. In view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. In view of the prohibition contained in clause (18), a person, who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee is not eligible to continue as such, continuously exceeding the term of two Committees. Respondents 6 to 10 were in the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years from 13.03.2017 till 12.03.2021. As held by this Court in Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379] the power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be exercised as a matter of course. The Devaswom Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall call for a report regarding the developmental works going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple and apply its mind to the materials and take a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not.

60. In the instant case, the pleadings and materiels on record, including the documents placed along with the memo dated 20.05.2022 filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board make it explicitly clear that, the extension of term granted to the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, originally for a period of one year, as evidenced by communication dated 11.02.2019 of the Deputy Commissioner, was absolutely without any basis. The reason for such extension of term is not discernible from the said communication of the Deputy Commissioner. The further extension of term for a period of six months each granted by the 1st respondent Board, as evidenced by communications dated 11.03.2020 and 28.10.2020, are for completing the renovation work of the Koothambalam and for taking preparatory steps for Chithira festival scheduled on 14.04.2020 and 14.04.2021 respectively. As already noticed hereinbefore, no materials are placed on record either by respondents 1 to 4 or by respondents 5 to 10 to show that any development work in connection with renovation of the Koothambalam commenced prior to 12.03.2019, for granting extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee by one year, by the Devaswom Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules. The extended term of one year expired on 12.03.2020. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Board extended the term of the Committee for a period of one year (six months each), i.e., till 12.03.2021. Just before the expiry of the term, 'Anunja' ceremony was conducted on 04.03.2021 for obtaining the permission of deity to commence the renovation work of the Koothambalam. After obtaining 'Anunja' on 04.03.2021, no development activity in connection with renovation of the Koothambalam could be commenced, which is evident from the fact that the 1st respondent Board accorded sanction to execute the work at the revised rate of Rs.51,00,000/- only on 07.12.2021, as evidenced by Ext.R10(G) proceedings dated 07.12.2021. Thereafter, respondents 6 to 10, who obtained 'Anunja' on 04.03.2021, entered into Annexure R1(c) agreement with the Executive Engineer, Mavelikkara, only on 18.01.2022.

61. The direction contained in Ext.R10(B) communication dated 04.08.2021 of the Deputy Commissioner, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, was to constitute a seven member Ad-hoc Committee with Assistant Commissioner, Sub Group Officer and persons who are interested in the affairs of the temple and forward the list to the Board for its approval. The Deputy Commissioner, vide Ext.R10(D) proceedings dated 06.09.2021, granted approval for the Ad-hoc Committee, without noticing the fact that respondents 6 to 10, who were in the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years, are disqualified to be members in the Advisory Committee, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules, which provide that a person holding office of membership in an Advisory Committee shall not be eligible to remain in the Committee continuously exceeding the term of two Committees. Therefore, the inclusion of respondents 6 to 10 in the 5th respondent Ad-hoc committee is per se arbitrary and illegal. As already noticed, in view of the provisions under Clause (2), Clause (9) and Clause (11) of Ext.P1 Rules and also the law laid down by this Court in Chandu K. [2021 (3) KHC 379] the construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. When respondents 6 to 10 are disqualified from being elected as members of the Temple Advisory Committee in view of the prohibition contained in Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules, they cannot be included as members of an Ad-hoc Committee formed for the renovation of the Koothambalam.

62. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10, allegations have been levelled against some of the petitioners in this writ petition and signatories to Ext.P4 representation dated 21.05.2022 submitted before the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer. Materials are placed on record to show that complaints have been made by some of the signatories to Ext.P4 representation before the Station House Officer, Haripad Police Station and also the Sub Group Officer, Haripad Devaswom, alleging that their signatures have been forged or affixed without their consent, knowledge, etc. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 29.03.2022, in order to answer the allegations contained in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 10. We do not propose to dwell into those issues in this writ petition and leave it open so as to enable either side to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their legal grievances, if any.

63. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, the constitution of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee for undertaking the renovation work of the Koothambalam of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad with respondents 6 to 10 as its members is legally unsustainable and it is declared so. It is for the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer to take necessary steps for the formation of a Temple Advisory Committee, after complying with the requirements under Ext.P1 Rules and thereafter, undertake the renovation work of the Koothambalam. Any amount collected by the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee by way of sealed coupons and the remaining sealed coupons shall be handed over to the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer, within a period of two weeks. The 4th respondent shall convene a meeting of the 'registered mandalam', after complying with the statutory requirements under Ext.P1 Rules, within a period of one month and thereafter, conduct election to the Temple Advisory Committee. Necessary steps in this regard shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. After the constitution of the Temple Advisory Committee as directed above, the 1st respondent Board shall proceed with the renovation work of the Koothambalam, in accordance with law.

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

Advocate List

  • SRI. D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

  • SRI. G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P), SC. R5 TO R10 BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SMT. K.P.GEETHA MANI

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Eq Citations
  • 2022 (4) KHC 663
  • 2022 (4) KLT 324
  • LQ/KerHC/2022/2297
Head Note

**Temple Law — Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) — Constitution, Extension of Term, and Formation of Ad-hoc Committee:** - Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, S. 31A — Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) — Constitution — Mandatory — Extension of term beyond prescribed limit — Not permissible — Ext. P1 Rules, Cl. (18) — TAC members — Continuous membership for more than four years — Prohibited — Ad-hoc Committee formed for renovation work — Inclusion of former TAC members who had served four consecutive years — Illegal. - Ad-hoc Committee — Formation — Legality — Challenge — Petitioners, devotees of temple, challenged constitution of Ad-hoc Committee for renovation of temple's Koothambalam — Contention that formation of Ad-hoc Committee bypassed statutory requirement of constituting TAC under S. 31A of Act — Court held that term of previous TAC had expired and extension granted by Devaswom Commissioner and Travancore Devaswom Board was not in accordance with Ext. P1 Rules — Inclusion of former TAC members in Ad-hoc Committee who had served four consecutive years was illegal as per prohibition under Cl. (18) of Ext. P1 Rules. - Ad-hoc Committee — Legality — Declaration — Court declared constitution of Ad-hoc Committee as legally unsustainable — Directions issued to Sub Group Officer to take necessary steps for formation of TAC in compliance with Ext. P1 Rules — Handover of collected funds and remaining sealed coupons to Sub Group Officer directed — Sub Group Officer ordered to convene meeting of 'registered mandalam' and conduct elections for TAC within specified timeframes — Travancore Devaswom Board instructed to proceed with renovation work of Koothambalam in accordance with law after constitution of TAC.