IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 18704 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. AGNI NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN ADISSERYPAD, EDAVAZHIPURATHU MANA, THIPPILASSERY POST, THRISSUR-680 519, 2. M.V.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.M.P.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, MULLAPPILLI PADUTHOL MANA, PERUMPILAVU POST, THRISSUR- 680 519. 3. VIJAYAN NAMBOOTHIRI E.M., S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, EDAVAZHIPURATH MANA, THIPPILASSERY POST, THRISSUR-680 519. 4. K.SIVASANKARAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTA KURUP, KURUTHOLAYIL HOUSE, THIPPILASSERY POST, THRISSUR-680 519. BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE PRESIDENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,THRISSUR. 3. VADUKKOOTTAYIL VISWANATHAN, VADUKKOOTTAYIL HOUSE, THIPPILASSERY POST, THRISSUR. 4. K.KRISHNAN NAIR, KAKKADATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, THIPPILASSERY POST, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18704/2009 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/06/2009 OF THE THANTHRI OF THE THRUCHUDALAYIL MAHADEVA TEMPLE AND THE KIZHAKKEDATH MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE. P2: COPY OF THE TRUST DEED. P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD.11/05/2005. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE OORALERS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. P5: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD. 7/03/2009 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ORDER E 1316/77 DTD. 14/07/1977. R1(B1): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE URALAR DTD. 16/01/1978. R1(B2): COPY OF THE URALAR DTD. 9/01/1978. R1(B3): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/11/1977. R1(C): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/01/2009. R1(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6/11/08. R1(E): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DTD. 12/01/09 AND 27/01/09. R1(F): COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DTD. 11/05/2009. R3(A): COPY OF PROCEEDINGS E.1316/1971, DTD. 14/07/1997, OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R3(B): COPY OF THE REPORT ON THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE TEMPLE FOR THE YEARS 1983-84 TO 1985-86. R3(C): COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR AND OTHERS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.18704 of 2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioners claim that they are the uralers of the temple in question. As per Ext.R3(a), the competent authority had noted on 14.7.1977 that the Devaswom in question is under the control and supervision of CDB and the uraima of the Devaswom is vested in three Namboodiri families named in that order. One of the members of one of those families was managing the affairs of the Devaswom as Manager by virtue of a karar executed by uralers. It is noted in Ext.R3(a) dated 14.7.1977 that complaints were received to the effect that the said Manager left the Devaswom without handing over the accounts, registers etc. and also the keys of the Pathayapura to the uralers. WPC18704/09 -: 2 :- Enquiries conducted by the CDB authorities revealed that the other uralers are not prepared to take up the management of the Devaswom. Daily poojas in the temple were being conducted by a committee collecting contributions from the local people. The said situation led the local people to request the Board to take up the management of the Devaswom either by the Board directly or to entrust it to a local committee. The uralers also represented to the CDB authorities their inability to look after the affairs of the Devaswom. They requested the Board to take up the management of the Devaswom either direct from the Board or to appoint a suitable person as Manager of the Devaswom. On that fact situation, by Ext.R3(a) order, one Krishnan Nair was appointed as the trustee of the Devaswom pending further enquiry. This means that he was appointed as an interim trustee to look after the affairs of the temple. That does not, ipso facto, result in the removal of the trustee or trustees. That also does not result in any order of assumption in WPC18704/09 -: 3 :- terms of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter remains that till 2008-2009, none from the three families showed any interest to take back the management of the temple asserting their rights as uralers. Ultimately, it appears that a trust deed was registered and claims were staked on that basis. In the meanwhile, Krishnan Nair had become pretty old. He, allegedly, petitioned the CDB that he may be relieved of his duties, having regard to his failing health. Going by the records, the Board authorities heard the persons who claim right under the so-called trust deed, the uralers, the local people, Krishnan Nair etc. and ultimately, passed the impugned Ext.P3 order whereby the third respondent was appointed in lieu of Krishnan Nair. Obviously, the quality of the appointment of the third respondent is only as an interim trustee since that was the post held by Krishnan Nair from 14.7.1977 in terms of Ext.R3(a) order. 2.May be, because the uralers were not concerned WPC18704/09 -: 4 :- with the activity that was going on under Ext.R3 (a), or may be that there was no other manner of management or requirement to pass any further order, the Board continued the situation obtained under Ext.R3(a) for a long period. Even now that situation continues. We say so because, as noted by us earlier, the appointment of the third respondent is only to the office vacated by Krishnan Nair, owing to his ill-health. 3.The uralers, who are the writ petitioners, say that without consulting them, a trustee could not have been appointed. While this is the basis of the plea of the writ petitioners, we note that the third respondent has been appointed only as an interim trustee which may be only in lieu of incapacity of an existing trustee or only as an order or procedure to hold the field anticipating completion of procedure of assumption or otherwise. 4.May be matters in relation to the temple in WPC18704/09 -: 5 :- question were not agitated by the uralers at any earlier point of time. That may be the reason why there was delay in concluding assumption proceedings or any other proceedings which could have been generated following Ext.R3(a). The logical conclusion that has to be arrived at is that any proceeding intended in terms of Ext.R3 (a), be it for removal of trustee or assumption or for any direction or order, has to necessarily conclude. This is because if such an order is against the interest of a trustee or trustees or against the interest of any person having any concern with the temple, that could be challenged in different jurisdictions subject, of course, to the eligibility to make such a challenge. We also cannot ignore the stand taken by the third respondent in his counter affidavit and the submissions indicated on his behalf that by a long period of exclusion from administration and the uralers having turned themselves to be apparently not available for a long period, the temple has obtained the status of something akin WPC18704/09 -: 6 :- to a public trust. That is a matter on which we do not express anything at all. 5.The immediate requirement in the situation is that the Board will hear the uralers and Krishnan Nair again and take a final decision as to a final order that would be issued as a conclusion of proceedings generated by Ext.R3(a). Obviously, having regard to the involvement of the local public and the third respondent who has been appointed and who is now officiating as the interim trustee, such persons, who would be interested to be heard, would also be heard by the Board. The third respondent's stand and any plea of the public that the temple has attained a public status, could also be considered by the competent authority during the proceedings. A final decision shall be taken by the competent authority in the Board within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WPC18704/09 -: 7 :- 6.In the interregnum, following the interim order dated 6.7.2009 issued by this Court, the third respondent is managing the temple. We record the submission and order that such situation will continue until a decision is taken by the competent authority in terms of the aforesaid directions. We hasten to add that we have not expressed anything on merits of the claims of any of the parties and leave open all issues to be decided by the competent authority in the CDB in accordance with law after hearing the necessary parties. The writ petition ordered accordingly. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1503