IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 18713 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREE POORNATHRAYEESA BHAKTHAJANA SAMITHI,THRIPUNITHURA,REP; BY ITS PRESIDENT, A.VENUNATH,S/O.ACHUTHANANDAN,'POORANASREE', AMBILI NAGAR,NORTH FORT,THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,THRISSUR-1,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680 001. 2. SREE POORNATHRAYEESA SEVA SANGHAM, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY,SEVASANGHAM BUILDINGS, EAST GATE POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682 031. *ADDL. R3.IMPLEADED: 3. RAMADAS R.VARMA, EDOOP PALACE,TRIPUNITHURA. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 IN IA.12931/2011. **ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED: 4.SHANTHA THAMPURAN, D/O.M.SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT EASWARA SEVA PALACE, KOTTAKKAKAM, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 16.08.2011 IN IA.13442/2011. W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L: ***ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED: 5. M.HARIDAS, S/O.K.RAMAN NAIR, MADASSERY HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ***IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R5. AS PER ORDER DATED 20.09.2011 IN IA.13446/2011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,S.C,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE, OMBUDSMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY SEVA SANGHAM DTD. 12/11/2000 WITH REGARD TO THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE AFFAIRS OF POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE R.2. REQUESTING MONEY FROM THE RESPONDENT FOR PURCHASING AN ELEPHANT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.33180/00 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SLP.(CIVIL) NO.19453/2003 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPROVED BYELAW OF THE KSHETHRA SAMITHI. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 12/09/2001. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 21/08/2001. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 09/05/2005. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COCHIN ROYAL FAMILY BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR DEVASWOM. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/01/1999 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. R1/428/97 DTD. 28/10/2000. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/09/03. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 20/1/03. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 10/01/04. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DTD. 18/08/1999. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DTD. 18/08/1999. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR TO THE BOARD DTD. 22/03/1999. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 13/07/2008. W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L: EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SOLICITING DONATION FROM DEVOTEES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL FESTIVAL BOOKLETS. EXT.P.23: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SOLICITING DONATION FROM DEVOTEES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL FESTIVAL BOOKLETS. EXT.P.24: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SOLICITING DONATION FROM DEVOTEES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL FESTIVAL BOOKLETS. EXT.P.25: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE SHOWING THE PARTICULARS OF WE SITE MAINTAINED BY SEVA SANGHAM. EXT.P.26: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN THE SEB SITE. EXT.P.27: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE DEVASWOM MEMBER DTD. 24/02/2009. EXT.P.28: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 853/10 OF THRIPUNITHURA POLICE STATION. EXT.P.29: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS PUBLISHED IN POTHUVRITHANTHAM DTD. 19/04/2010. EXT.P.30: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 19/04/2010. EXT.P.31: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 08/01/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R1.(A): COPY OF THE GUIDELINES. EXT.R1.(B): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/10/2007 IN I.A. NO.16926/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO.16904/2006. EXT.R1.(C): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/10/2007 IN I.A. NO. 14031/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO.16904/2006. EXT.R1.(D): COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1.2931/06 DTD. 09/11/2007. EXT.R1.(E): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 15/11/2007. EXT.R1.(F): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 27/09/2010. EXT.R1.(G): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/01/2011 IN D.B.A. NO. 11/2011. EXT.R1.(H): COPY OF THE ORDER DTED. 27/07/2011 D.B.A. NO. 11/2011. EXT.R2A1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/03/1997 IN CMP.477/97 IN CDB NO.1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2.A2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/06/1997 IN CMP.477/97 IN CDB.NO.1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L: EXT.R2.A3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 15/07/1997 IN CMP.477/97 IN CDB.NO.1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.4403/97 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2.C: COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 09/12/2003 FILED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD IN SLP.4459-60/03 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 31/05/2008 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2008. EXT.R2.D.2: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 14/07/2009 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2009. EXT.R2.D3: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 14/07/2010 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2010. EXT.R2.D4: COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORT DTD. 22/06/2001 FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2011. EXT.R2.E1: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 12/07/2008 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 30/06/2008. EXT.R2.E2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 05/02/2009 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 31/12/2008. EXT.R2.E3: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20/07/2009 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 30/06/2009. EXT.R2.E4: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 16/03/2010 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 31/12/2009. EXT.R2.E5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 18/09/2010 FOR THE HALF YEAR ENDED ON 30/06/2010. EXT.R2.E6: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 07/04/2011 FOR THE PERIOD 1/7/2010 TO 31/3/2011. EXT.R2.F: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/09/2007 PASSED IN O.S. 692/2004. EXT.R2.G1: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2002. EXT.R2.G2: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2003. EXT.R2.G3: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2005. EXT.R2.G4: COPY OF THE LIST OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI FOR THE YEAR 2006. EXT.R2.H: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 24/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY F.A.O ISSUED TO R.2. WITH COVERING LETTER DTD. 07/10/2009. EXT.R2.I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED AS 2004 (2) KLJ 820. W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L: EXT.R2.J: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/12/2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION 16904/2006. EXT.R2.K: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/07/2007 IN I.A. 6706/07 IN W.P.(C).16904/06. EXT.R2.L: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/10/07 PASSED IN I.A. 12926/07 IN W.P.(C). 16904/06. EXT.R2.M: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/10/07 PASSED IN I.A. 14031/07 IN W.P.(C). 16904/06. EXT.R2.N: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.112/11/2007 DT.D 15/11/2007 BETWEEN SEVA SANGHAM AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.R2.O: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/08/2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. NO. 689/07 IN UNNUMBERED RP.IN I.A. NO. 14031/2007 IN W.P.(C).16904/2006. EXT.R2.P: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/10/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).28981/2007. EXT.R2.Q: COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DTD. 08/10/2002 SUBMITTED BY SRI. PARAMESWARA PANICKER, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.R2.R: COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY T.N. RAMAN BHATTATHIRIPPAD. EXT.R2.S: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF JOINED MEETING OF 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER OF RENOVATION OF SREEKOVIL OF SREE POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE. EXT.R2.T: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA NO.11/2011. EXT.R2.U: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 07/04/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA.NO.11/2011. EXT.R2.V: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/04/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA.NO.11/2011. EXT.R2.W: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/06/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. 716/2011 IN DBA.NO.11/2011. EXT.R2.X: COPY OF THE PETITION NO.58/2008 FILED BEFORE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN BY PETITIONER ON 01/03/2008. EXT.R2.Y: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SEVA SAMGHAM ON 09/06/2008 BEFORE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN IN PETITION 58/2008. EXT.R2.Z: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 12/08/2008 COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER BY HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN IN PETITON NO. 58/2008. EXT.R2.AA: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.D 15/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA. EXT.R2.AB: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 12/08/2009 SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. W.P.(C).NO.18713/2011-L: EXT.R2.AC: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A9.B453/09 DT.D 09/09/2009 ISSUED BY SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TO THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPT., EXT.R2.AD: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H1-2931/06 DTD. 09/11/2007 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.R2.AE: COPY OF THE O.P.NO.33180/2000-Y FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2.AF: COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2000 SUBMITTED BY SEVA SAMGHAM FOR TEMPLE ACTIVITIES. EXT.R2.AG: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP DTD. 19/11/2010 ISSUED BY KERALA FOREST DEPT TO THE R.2. EXT.R2.AH: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO A1 SECURITY SYSTEM. EXT.R2.AI: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24/04/2010 GIVEN BY A1 SECURITY SERVICE TO THE R.2. EXT.R3.(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2004 (2) KLJ 820. EXT.R3.(B): COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DTD. 20/01/2004 BY THE PROPRIETOR, A.G. RAJU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. EXT.R3.(C): COPY OF THE BYELAW OF THE R.2. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.18713 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner who claims to be an unregistered association of persons by name Sree Poornathrayeesa Bhakthajana Samithi, Thripunithura. A person claiming to be the President of the said Association has filed this petition. In the petition, five specific reliefs are claimed. 2. Before we come to the nature of the specific reliefs claimed, we deem it appropriate to refer broadly to the scope of the petition. Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura is an A-grade temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board. This temple is situated at Thripunithura, the former capital of the Cochin State. It is claimed that the said temple is unique in its historical importance. While the petitioner claims that the petitioner is an Association of devotees of Sree Poornathrayeesan, Thripunithura, that assertion is disputed by the 2nd respondent. W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 2 :- According to the second respondent, the petitioner has no locus standii. It is an association of individuals and they cannot claim any legal status. Second respondent raises scathing criticism that the petitioner has no moral authority also to speak on behalf of the deity or the devotees of the temple. We deem it unnecessary to go into that larger question. Though there is a contention that the petitioner, being an unregistered association cannot maintain this application in its name as of right, we do not think it necessary even to go into that question in detail as we are called upon to invoke and entertain our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whoever brings the notice of this Court relevant facts, we do not propose to ignore relevant facts if any on the mere technical plea that the petitioner is not duly registered. Suffice it to say that, we are not persuaded to feel that the questions raised need be gone into in any detail in this petition. 1st respondent is the Cochin Devaswom Board (the C.D.B hereafter). The second respondent is Sree Poornathrayeesa Seva Sangham (the Sangham hereafter) represented by its Secretary. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is a registered society under the Travancore Cochin W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 3 :- Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955. It is submitted that the said Sangham had started its activities long back; but they were registered as a Society in 1975. It is the assertion of the second respondent that the second respondent has nothing but the interest of the deity, the temple and the devotees in mind. They have been carrying on their activities in accordance with their bye laws (Ext.R3(c)). According to them, from 1975 to 2001, they were actively associating themselves with the activities of the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura. Members of the second respondent, it is claimed, are selfless devotees whose only interest is to ensure that affairs of the temple are carried on with the pomp, glory and piety which is expected in the temple by the devotees. 3. Even though the petition was initially filed with only respondents 1 and 2 on the party array, subsequently respondents 3 to 5 have been impleaded. The 3rd respondent claims to be a devotee of the temple as also a member of the Cochin Royal family, the family deity of which is Sree Poornathrayeesan. It can broadly be said that respondents 2 and W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 4 :- 3 go hand in hand in this petition. The 4th respondent subsequently got herself impleaded. She also claims to be member of the royal family of erstwhile Cochin State. It can broadly be said that the 4th respondent supports the petitioner. The 5th respondent, who later on got impleaded as a party, claims to be a devotee, not interested in taking sides at all. The 5th respondent has made before Court certain grievances, submissions and proposals which will be considered later on the appropriate occasion when we deal with the specific reliefs claimed. 4. The petition broadly reveals grievances of the petitioner against the second respondent Sangham and the alleged attitude of acquiescence and inaction on the part of the 1st respondent against the allegedly improper activities of the second respondent. 5. We note that this inter se dispute/rivalry between the petitioner and the second respondent has started long back and a long list of past events bear testimony to the inability of the petitioner and the second respondent to see eye to eye in many matters. We deem it unnecessary to advert to that sad history of W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 5 :- acrimony between the petitioner and the second respondent both of whom, if true to their proclaimed objectives and must be able to work in harmony and hence in the interests of the deity and devotees of the temple. 6. In the nature of the disputes that are raised to which we shall advert to in detail later, we wanted the Amicus Curiae/Standing Counsel for the Ombudsman to help us in the proper disposal of this case. On behalf of the State, we had wanted the learned Government Pleader also to appear and assist this Court. They have appeared and assisted the Court. 7. The six specific prayers made in this writ petition are enumerated below: i) To direct the Cochin Devaswom Board to constitute a Kshethra Kshema Samithy in the Tripoonithura Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple in accordance with the approved bye-law. ii) Direct the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P3 and take possession of the movable and immovable properties purchased by the 2nd respondent Samithy. iii) Declare that no organisation/association of devotees can function in any Temple under Cochin Devaswom Board which is not W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 6 :- constituted in accordance with Ext.P5 bye law. iv) Prohibit any organization/association/seva sangham from collecting fund in any form, from the general public or devotees in the name of deities in Temples attached to the Devaswom Board. v) Direct the 2nd respondent to submit the entire accounts collected till date from the general public/devotees and from other sources to the local fund Auditor of Cochin Devaswom Board for audit. vi) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 8. The 6th of the prayers is only residuary prayer and we need concern ourselves with the five specific prayers enumerated above as prayers (i) to (v). 9. Prayer No.i): According to the petitioner, there is no Temple Advisory Committee/Kshethra Kshema Samithi in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura (the temple hereinafter) now. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent Sangham is let loose by the 1st respondent and the Sangham is unauthorisedly exercising various functions in the temple W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 7 :- holding themselves to be the Temple Advisory Committee/Kshethra Kshema Samithi. We shall hereinafter refer to the said Committee as 'the Samithi'. 10. To trace the history of the Samithi, our attention has been drawn to the High Power Committee appointed by this Court to go into the affairs of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. It is unnecessary to extract the entire history. It is the common case that the need for an Advisory Committee was perceived and Ext.P5 guidelines/bye-laws (Niyamavali) was issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board. It is the grievance of the petitioner that such a Committee as contemplated by Ext.P5 has not been constituted for temple now and in that vacuum the second respondent is de facto functioning such Samithi. It is in this context that the prayer is made that the Samithi may be duly constituted in accordance with Ext.P5 or any other relevant rules/guidelines/provision. Respondents 1 and 2 have a common response to this grievance. Respondents 1 and 2 submit that Ext.P5 is not in force any longer. It is their case that Ext.R1(a) is the relevant guideline presently available. This does not have the force of law and it is only a guideline W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 8 :- issued by the 1st respondent/Devaswom Board in exercise of its executive responsibility to properly administer the temple. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 point out that neither Ext.P5 nor Ext.R1(a) has the force of a binding rule. They are only self-regulatory guidelines issued by the Devaswom Board to draw support and assistance from a duly constituted body of devotees to help, guide and advise the Board for the proper administration of the temple. Relying on the decision in M.K.Ramachandra Menon v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors. [2004 (2) KLJ 820], it is contended that neither Ext.P5 nor Ext.R1(a) can be made use of by the petitioner or any other to claim any rights. In fact, Ext.R1(a) has been formulated after the judgment in Ramachandra Menon (Supra), points out by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel submits that it is not as though no body has been constituted in accordance with Ext.R1(a). It is pointed out that after Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) orders were passed by the Devaswom Bench of the High Court, Ext.R1(d) order was issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board. Clause 8 of the said proceedings speaks about the right of the second respondent W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 9 :- Sangham to act as the Samithi. We extract below clause 8 of Ext.R1(d). 8. Sevasangham (i.e. the second respondent herein) is permitted to conduct the annual festivals and other functions at the temple during the period of renovation and can also act as temple advisory committee in order to facilitate proper execution of the renovation work.” Subsequently, Ext.R1(e) agreement was entered into between respondents 1 and 2. 11. A brief reference to Exts.R1(b) to R1(e) may be relevant. There was a proposal for re-construction of the Sreekovil of the temple. There, the dispute was to how and in what manner the renovation has to be undertaken. The second respondent had raised objections to the proposal which the 1st respondent had made for the renovation of the Sreekovil. The 2nd respondent had offered to get the work of renovation done more expeditiously and less expensively. It is accordingly that Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) orders were passed by the Devaswom Bench of this Court. That led us to Ext.R1(d) proceedings which in turn led to execution of Ext.R1(e). It is unnecessary to advert W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 10 :- in detail to all these proceedings. The relevant contention is that under Ext.R1(d) and R1(e) the 2nd respondent Sangham is permitted to function as the Samithi. It is not as though this is a private arrangement between respondents 1 and 2. High Court has been apprised of all the relevant details and the renovation work is being conducted by the Sangham with the approval of the Devaswom Board. The work is being monitored by the said Bench. The work is not completed and at the moment, time is available for respondents 1 and 2 to complete the work till 31/10/2011. Till such work is completed as approved by the Devaswom Bench and as revealed from Exts.R1(d) and R1(e), the 2nd respondent is entitled to function as Samithi. The 2nd respondent asserts that the 1st respondent has not so far raised any valid objections against the manner in which the second respondent is discharging its duties in connection with the renovation work or in connection with their duties as Samithi. In these circumstances, it is prayed that there is absolutely no necessity to issue any specific directions in respect of prayer No. (i). W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 11 :- 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that the Devaswom Board (1st respondent) has no intention of permitting the second respondent to indefinitely function as the Samithi. As soon as the renovation work is completed, Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) (order and agreement) shall come to termination and it shall be open to the 1st respondent to constitute a Samithi in accordance with Ext.R1(a) which is presently in force. It is not as though the 1st respondent has any partiality, prejudice or bias in favour of the second respondent. They are continuing as the Samithi by virtue of Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) from 2007. They are entitled to so continue as the Samithi till the renovation work is completed. The Board is only waiting for the work to be completed and thereupon appropriate further steps to constitute another Samithi in accordance with Ext.R1(a) shall be undertaken, submits the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. 13. The learned Standing Counsel/Amicus Curiae representing the Ombudsman points out that there has been a subsequent amendment in the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act under which Section 36A has been W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 12 :- introduced. By Act 5 of 2007, the TCHRI Act has been amended and Sec.76A after amendment reads as follows: “76A. Formation of Temple Advisory Committees.-- (1) 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. (2) The Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved bythe Board. (3) The composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice, prevailing, if any.” 14. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that steps are being initiated in accordance with law to prescribe the relevant rules. The procedure is already undertaken and at the earliest the requisite rules shall be in place, submits the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 13 :- respondent. In accordance with such rules, if such rules are framed by then or in the alternative in accordance with Ext.R1(a) the necessary Samithi shall be constituted at the earliest, submits the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel/amicus curiae for the Ombudsman points out that such rules have to be prescribed and the temple Advisory Committee in accordance with the amended Sec.76A will have to be constituted by the Board at the earliest. 15. What we intend to note is that continuance of the 2nd respondent as Samithy has already been approved by the Devaswom Board and the continuance is not on the sly or as camouflage. It is on the basis of Ext.R1(d) and Ext.R1(e) (order and agreement). In these circumstances, we accept the submissions made by the 1st respondent and do not deem it necessary to issue any specific directions. We also do not think it necessary to interfere with the functioning of the 2nd respondent as the Samithy now as the very order/agreement Ext.R1(d) and R1(e) were placed before the Devaswom Bench and the Devaswom Bench had not chosen to interfere with such functioning of the 2nd respondent under Ext.R1(d)/R1(e). W.P.(c) No.18713 of 2011 -: 14 :- 16. It is, of course, brought to our notice that there is an unnumbered review petition pending in D.B.A.No.11/11 whereunder the