IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10393 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.K.PANDIT, PLOT NO.435/2/2A,SAI RESIDENCY, RAMNATH PANDIT RESEARCH CENTRE COMPLEX, VISHNUPURI PO,TALEGAON(DABHADE),PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-410 507. 2. ARAVIND B.PANDIT,S/O.LATE BALACHANDRA PANDIT,CCV/1073,PANDITHAN TEMPLE ROAD, COCHIN-2. 3. ANAND B.PANDIT,S/O.LATE BALACHANDRA PANDIT,AGED 38,CCV/1073, PANDITHAN TEMPLE ROAD, COCHIN-2. 4. PRAMOD S.GORE,S/O.LATE S.V.GORE,AGED 64,905,GORE CHAMBERS,G.K.AVENUE,COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.P.H.SHAJI (THRIKKAKARA) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. 3. SREEKRISHNASWAMY DEVASWOM REP. BY ITS MANGING TRUSTEE- DIVAKAR D.DEO, 5/977 PANDIT ROAD, GOPALAKRISHNA AVENUE, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN – 2 4. DIVAKAR D.DEO, AGED 64, S/O.LATE D.V.DEO, MANAGING TRUSTEE, 5/977, PANDITHAN TEMPLE ROAD, GOPALAKRISHNA AVENUE, MATTANCHERRY COCHIN – 2. 5. K.P.MOHANDAS, INTERIM TRUSTEE, SREE KRISHNA SWAMY DEVASWOM 'SIVAKRUPA' , EROOR SOUTH P.O., TRIHPUNITHURA – 682 306. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.10393 of 2010 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 3.12.97 OF THE ASST. SECRETARY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E 3909/76 DTD. 18.2.86 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.6.87 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 20.3.08 OF THE CENTRAL INSPECTOR OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30.4.2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 14.10.08 OF THE SPCIAL BHANDARAM OFFICER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER SUBMITTED ON 25.2.2009 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE HON. OMBUDSMAN IN W.P.(C) 4205/09 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.4205/09 DT. 18.6.2009 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P11 TRUE COY OF THE ORDER DT. 21.8.2009 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DT. 22.8.2009 OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11.1.2010 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.1.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 10.10.09 OF THE LAW OFFICER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF MANAGING TRUSTEES. EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FOR MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRTION OF THE TEMPLE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. W.P.(C) No.10393 of 2010 : 2 : EXT.R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.R3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SANTHA BAI .B.PANDIT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.R3(j) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT APPROVING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRST PETITIONER – TEMPLE. EXT.R3(k) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.R3(l) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.R3(m) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARDS, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R3(n) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(o) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(p) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(q) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) No.4205/2009 EXT.R3(r) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE OMBUDSMAN. EXT.R3(s) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.4205/2009 EXT.R3(t) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.96/2009. EXT.R3(u) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDIGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(v) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.24394/2009. EXT.R3(w) TRUE COPY OF IA.NO.1251/2009 IN O.S.NO.96/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. //TRUE COPY// P.A. To Judge. P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 10393 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioners seek to quash Ext.P13 order passed by the first respondent as also Ext.P14 issued by the second respondent on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and for a direction to implement Ext.P7 order earlier passed. 2. The case has got a chequered history. Respondents 3 and 4 along with some others, had instituted a civil suit as O.S. 96/2009 before the Sub Court, Kochi challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the first respondent, which is still pending. As per Ext.P7, the Cochin Devaswom Board appointed an interim trustee by name Mohandas and directed the interim trustee to frame an appropriate scheme for administration of the Temple. While the suit impugning Ext.P7 was pending, the third respondent also approached this court by filing W.P.(C) 4205/2009. After calling for a report from the Ombudsman, this Court by Ext.P10 judgment dated 18.6.2009, dismissed the writ petition relegating the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the civil suit. Respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition are petitioners 1 and 4 herein. Since this Court declined to grant WP(C) 10393/2010 2 any relief in the said writ petition, the matter continued in that stage for some time until Ext.P13 was passed by the Board. By Ext.P13, the interim arrangement made by the Board for appointing an interim trustee and calling for a report suggesting a scheme stands dropped obviously for the reason that a civil suit is pending. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in so far as Ext.P14 has been passed without hearing the petitioners, it is in violation of principles of natural justice and according to him, the second respondent has no power to issue any such order like Ext.P14. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Ext.P13 should be found to be an order passed against the principles of natural justice with a view to continue Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Ext.P13 is also passed by the same officer. At any rate, the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board is the signatory to both Exts.P7 and P13. Whatever it be, the effect of Ext.P13 is only to withdraw Ext.P7. In other words, status quo was restored by Ext.P13. Admittedly, the temple is not attached to the Cochin Devawom Board and it is a private Devaswom. But the preset situation would show that the very suit instituted by Respondents 3 and 4 might become infructuous since the very challenge in the said suit was against WP(C) 10393/2010 3 Ext.P7 and now that Ext.P7 stands withdrawn by Ext.P13, nothing remains for further consideration. But if the petitioners have a case that a new scheme has to be framed for the administration of the temple or that the elected members of the Body are incompetent to administer the temple, it is always open to them to approach the civil court by instituting a civil suit for such remedies. Besides, since at the time of passing Ext.P7 admittedly, there was a Board constituted based on an election and in case there is any mismanagement in the matter of administration by the elected Body or there is any defect in the constitution or a situation has arisen where a new scheme is to be framed, it may be open to the petitioners to approach the Board also whereupon the Board will consider the same and do the needful in accordance with law. This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the civil court also. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate to make any interference with Ext.P13 now passed. The writ petition is dismissed. sd/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. sd/- P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. // true copy// P.S. to Judge. KNC/-