IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 10257 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PARAKKAD SREE BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES K.M.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 62 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K. MOHANAKANNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10257 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT “C.R.” Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This matter relates to the administration of the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom at Kavassery in Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. It cannot be disputed that the said Devaswom is an autonomous body administered in terms of a scheme framed by the District Court and the control of Malabar Devaswom Board over it, in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, is only supervisory. One T.P.Murukan was the Manager of the aforesaid Devaswom. When he attained the age of superannuation, he did not hand over charge to any person but continued to hold office. Ultimately, the Assistant Commissioner in the HR & CE (Administration) Department issued Ext.P2 on 20.11.2007, acting on a letter of the Commissioner and also the Devaswom Manager's application WPC.10257/10 2 for annual increment, ordering that Sri.Murukan shall forthwith surrender charge and custody of all affairs and movable and immovable properties of the temple and such charge will be temporarily taken by Sri.V.Ramanathan, who was then the executive officer of the Sree Keralapuram Viswanathaswami Devaswom, yet another autonomous Devaswom, now under the control of the MDB. 2.Thereafter, the management of the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom proceeded to make appointment of a Manager as against the vacancy that arose on the superannuation of Sri.Murukan. Their request for permission to do so was to be considered by the competent authority. On allegation that such direction was being delayed, this court directed consideration. The impugned Ext.P11 has been issued by the Devaswom Commissioner, refusing permission, on the premise that Sri.Ramanathan is a competent officer and that he is well versed in managing temples and his management can continue for the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom. WPC.10257/10 3 3. When Ext.P11 decision is impugned, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit standing by the impugned decision and proceeding to say that the ultimate consideration ought to be the affairs of the temple and to that extent, the supervisory jurisdiction of the respondents in terms of the Act justifies the impugned order. 4.A reply affidavit has been placed on record by the writ petitioner, with materials, in an attempt to show that Sri.V.Ramanathan had, in fact, not even been available for proper service in relation to the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom. It is also stated that he is in charge of other temples also. 5.We do not deem it necessary to go into the controversy raised on facts regarding the competence or availability of Sri.Ramanathan. This is pithily because the issue in hand revolves on a question of jurisdiction. The Parakkad Sree WPC.10257/10 4 Bhagavathi Devaswom is an autonomous body, governed by a scheme approved by the District Court and the temple is to be administered in terms of that. The said scheme provides for appointment of officers and staff. This includes the appointment of the Manager for the temple. The need for a Manager for the Devaswom is not in dispute. The power to appoint is with the Devaswom. Even in terms of the HR & CE Act, the power of the competent authority under that Act is only to supervise the affairs of the temple. The power to supervise does not include the power to appoint. Even assuming that the appointment has to be approved, the power to approve or the power to refuse approval does not confer the power to appoint. Therefore, the respondents, who are merely statutory authorities under the HR & CE Act, are not the authorities to make the appointment. 6.The entrustment of charge to Sri.V.Ramanathan in terms of Ext.P2 is, even going by the explicit terms of that document, only a temporary arrangement because Sri.Murukan had to be WPC.10257/10 5 relieved of charge. Not only that, Sri.Ramanathan is the executive officer of Sree Keralapuram Viswanathaswami Devaswom. There is no reason why he should be appointed as the Manager of yet another Devaswom. In the aforesaid circumstances, we quash Ext.P11 as one issued without jurisdiction and order that the petitioner will be entitled to appoint a Manager for the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom in terms of the scheme, in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.21/10.