IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19134 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P. ASOKAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, PAMPOOTTIL HOUSE, EDATHANATU KARA.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, PALAKKAD. 2. MANAGER, SREE PATHIRAMANA KARUMANAPPAN MARATTUKAVU DEVASWOM (PKM DEVASWOM), EDATHANATTUKARA, ALANALLUR, PALAKKAD DT. ADDL.R3.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEVASWOM, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADDL.R4.COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.6.2008 IN I.A. NO. 8201 OF 2008) ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO. 19134/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the communication from the Manager of the temple to the President of the Samithy dated. 10.11.1995. Ext.P2: True copy of the communication dated. 9.2.1995 issued by the Manager of the temple to the Santhi of the temple. Ext.P3: Photostat copy of the cheque issued by the Manager of the temple to the Secretary of the Samithy for payment of Rs.2000/-. Ext.P4: True copy of the communication issued from the Manager dated. 9.2.1995. Ext.P5: Photostat copy of the judgment in O.S. 398 of 1994 dated 21.11.2003. Ext.P6: True copy of the communication issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P7: True copy of the reply dated 14.1.2008. Ext.P8: True copy of the order of the 2nd respondent Manager dated 14.1.2008. Ext.P9: True copy of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P8. Ext.P10: True copy of the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Ext.P11: True copy of the order dated 6.3.08. Ext.P12: True copy of the minutes of the committee dated 5.2.2006. Ext.P13: Photostat copy of page 3 of the booklet published by the manager. Ext.P14: Photostat copy of page 4 of the booklet published by the manager. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R1(a): True copy of the Circular No.HRH5-8246/06 dated 15.6.2007. Ext.R2(a): True copy of the communication bearing No. LDS A3-1812/2007 dated 10.10.2007 issued by the first respondent. Ext. R2(b): True copy of the communication issued to the petitioner herein dated 28.12.2007 by the second respondent. Ext.R2(c): True copy of the reply dated 14.01.2008 issued by the petitioner. Ext.R2(d): True copy of the communication dated 14.01.2008 issued by the second respondent. Ext.R2(e): True copy of the communication dated 31.03.2008 issued by the second respondent to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ext.R2(f): True copy of the covering letter issued along with Ext.P10. Ext.R2(g): True copy of the postal receipt. Ext.R2(h): True copy of the letter dated 23.05.2008 issued to the Deputy Commissioner. Ext.R2(i): True copy of the complaint sent by P. Balachandran. Ext.R2(j): True copy of the receipt produced by P. Balachandran before the first respondent. Ext.R2(k): True copy of the letter issued to the 2nd respondent by the first respondent. Ext.R2(l): True copy of the circular taken by the department pursuant to a direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment in DB4/94 dated 28.06.1995. Ext.R2(m): True copy of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.09.1995. P.R. RAMAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 19134 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Raman J. The petitioner is stated to be the Secretary of the Kshethra Kshema Samithy of Sree Pathiramana Karumanappan Marattukavu Devaswom. The temple is under the supervisory control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (hereinafter referred to as HR & CE Department). According to the petitioner, the Samithy had been functioning for the past several years, but they were removed by Exty.P8 order by the second respondent as directed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. That was dismissed by Ext.P10 order. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Samithy was functioning for the past several years and that it is incorrect to say that it is not a duly constituted committee. To substantiate the contention learned counsel placed reliance on Ext.P1. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that Ext.R1(a) is the circular issued by the Commissioner which governs matters relating to constitution of the committee. W.P.(C)NO. 19134/2008 2 Accordingly, each committee can be constituted for a particular purpose. There cannot be any permanent committee for all time to come. Therefore, continuance of the petitioner's committee, if any, is not sanctioned by law and removal of such a committee is justified. 3. We have heard both sides. The petitioner is not able to substantiate the contention that the committee has got any permanent right to continue to be in the office in the matter of administration of the temple. Admittedly, this temple is under the control of the HR & CE Department and from 1939 onwards, the Manager is appointed by the Board for the day to day administration of the temple. That is evidenced from the judgment of the civil court in O.S. No. 398 of 1994 produced as Ext.P5. That was a suit instituted by another committee claiming such right as now claimed by the petitioner. The defendants therein contested the matter. It was their contention that in a public temple, the committee has no existence and that the day to day administration vests with the officer appointed by the HR & CE Department. Ultimately, that suit was dismissed. The principle contained in the said judgment equally applies to the case of the petitioner. It is not in the interest of any temple to have a number of such committees being formed by few persons in the name of Kshethra Kshema Samithy or Advisory Committee or whatever that be. W.P.(C)NO. 19134/2008 3 The temple committee should be constituted in accordance with the scheme, if any, or in the absence, by the person who is competent to administer the temple. In this case, nobody else at present has claimed management or administration of the temple. Going by Ext.P5 judgment, the day to day administration of the temple is being carried out from time immemorial by the HR & CE Board or by the officer appointed for that purpose. If that be so, any committee to advise him or to assist him in the matter of administration can be formed only by a competent officer in accordance with law. Since such a committee was formed during the last festival, as and when such need arises for constituting the committee, it will be done by the officer appointed. The petitioner has not been able to establish any permanent right to continue to be in the office. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (P.R. RAMAN) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 19134/2008 4 P.R. RAMAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)NO. 19134/2008 JUDGMENT 28th January, 2009 W.P.(C)NO. 19134/2008 5