IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 DBP.No. 67 of 2011() ------------------------------ IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD-DELAY IN ASSESSMENT THE VALUE OF TREE-COMPLAINT AGAINST DEVASWOM OFFICERS-TDB REPORT NO.51/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE OMBUDSMAN- SUO-MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-REG. ............... COMPLAINANT: ------------------------ SHRI P.N. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, PANAVALLIL VEEDU, THONIYAKAVU, NORTH PARAVOOR P.O., PIN-683 513. BY ADV. .. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, THONIYAKAVU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC FOR TDB BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT (AMICUS CURIAE) FOR OMBUDSMAN. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- D.B.P.No.67 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. Read order dated 6.7.2011. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the present incumbent in office as the second respondent that he joined the Thonniyakavu Bhagavathi Temple establishment only recently. We are also told that the present Assistant Devaswom Commissioner has not marked any appearance before us. The officer who was at some point of time the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner is stated to be present before us. Some would say that they had only a short spell in office. Others would say that the files were held up in some other office. There is also submission that the files are before the Tahsildar for determining the boundary of the Devaswom land and the land of P.N.Sivasankara Pillai. We are clear in our mind that if the Devaswom Board does not manage DBP.67/11 2 its affairs and take care of the immovable properties and other wealth of the temples, we may have to sound not only words of caution but even pass orders which may tend to affect the career of officers. The Board itself would have to be considered for proceedings which are available in terms of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The concept of trust, the powers of trustees and the obligations and duties attached to such offices inhere in the Devaswom Board. This is why there are provisions in the said Act which provide for action even against the board members. Under such circumstances, we are sure that this instance would indicate to the Board that time has come where it has to ensure that prompt action follows in all such cases. We are told that the Devaswom Commissioner has issued notices to the different officers calling for explanation. We leave it to the Board to conclude any proceedings, either disciplinary or for recovery of amounts for the loss, if any, sustained. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and it will be open to the officers to make such DBP.67/11 3 submissions and explanations to the Devaswom Commissioner and place all necessary materials as may be available with them in support of the respective defence. We further direct that the Devaswom Commissioner shall send up a report to the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards about the action taken in this regard, without fail, within a period of six months and the learned Ombudsman will include that in his annual report to this Court unless it is found necessary that any special orders are called for in any given situation. The DBP is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.20/7.