Kerala High Court
Sri. Binesh K vs The Cochin Devaswom Board on 2 July, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
DBP NO. 23 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD - REPORT NO. 3 OF 2024
IN COMPLAINT NO. 209 OF 2023- POONITHURA KOTTARAM SREE KRISHNA
TEMPLE- ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FAILURE OF PROPER UPKEEP OF ACCOUNTS
BY THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE- SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-
REG-
PETITIONERS:
SRI. BINESH K., VIKRAS 49, GREESHMA, POONITHURA.P.O.,
EERNAKULAM-682038
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
2 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.
3 SRI. B. GOVINDARAJAN NAIR,"RADHIKA" VIKRAS 47,
KOPPARAMBU LANE, POONITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682038.
4 SRI. K. SREENIVASAN
PKRRA 53, KOPPARAMBU LANE, POONITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-
682039.
2
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
5 SRI. T.V. LEELADHARAN,
PKRRA 41, " GEETHAM", KUREEKAT LANE, POONITHURA
KOTTARAM ROAD, POONITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682038.
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GP
SRI.K.P SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN, AMICUS CURIAE
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025
ALONG WITH WPC 18250 OF 2024, THE COURT ON 2.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18250 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 B.GOVIND RAJAN NAIR
AGED 79 YEARS
S/O BHASKARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT RADHIKA HOUSE,
POONITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682038
2 DIVYA .L
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O T.V.LEELADHARAN, THAZHUMPAL, POONITHUR KOTTARAM
ROAD, POONITHURA., PIN - 682038
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH,
THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680001
2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
COCHIN DEVASOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA GROUP,
THRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA GROUP,
THRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
4 THE KSHETRA UPADESAKA SAMITHY, POONITHURA KOTTARAM
4
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
TEMPLE, POONITHURA P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI.M.RADHAKRISHNAN, TRRA,102,LAKSHMI, THAMARASSERY
ROAD, POONITHURA., PIN - 682038
5 ADDL.R5: THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 ADDL R6: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
AUDIT, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 [ADDL.R5 &
ADDL.R6 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 25.05.2024 IN
WP(C)18250/2024].
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025,
ALONG WITH DBP NO.23 OF 2024, THE COURT ON 2.7.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
ORDER/JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
D.B.P. No.23 of 2024 is registered suo motu based on Report
No.3 of 2024 of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin
Devaswom Boards, pointing out the allegations raised in Annexure
01 complaint received from a devotee, alleging failure in the
proper upkeep of accounts by the Temple Advisory Committee of
Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple.
2. In the report, the learned Ombudsman stated that the
Devaswom Board had already taken steps to conduct an audit
after getting the records from the Committee, and hence,
Annexure 01 complaint was closed. But the learned Ombudsman
further stated in the report that there was a previous complaint
bearing No.63 of 2015 in respect of Poonithura Kottaram Sree
Krishna Temple, and it was noted at the time of enquiry of that
complaint that the accounts from 2012 were to be audited, and
even now it is not done, and the delay is not explained by the
Cochin Devaswom Board. Therefore, the learned Ombudsman
seeks necessary direction to the Cochin Devaswom Board to
6
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
complete the audit of the accounts as assured, within a time frame
and to submit an audit report.
3. W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by the devotees of Poonithura Kottaram
Temple seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 proceedings
dated 22.12.2023 of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board,
permitting the 4th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of
Poonithura Kottaram Temple, to construct a Nadapanthal on the
open space available on the eastern side of the Temple. The
petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the request submitted by the 4th
respondent seeking permission for construction of the
Nadapanthal taking into consideration of the fact that already
there is a Bhagavatha Mandiram and a stage to meet the
requirements and to declare that the present attempt to construct
a Nadapanthal on the eastern side of the Temple is an unnecessary
construction and amounts to wastage of public fund and it is not
in the interest of the devotees.
4. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
7
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Devaswom Board
whereby sanction is accorded to the 4 th respondent to construct
a nadapanthal on the open space available on the eastern side of
the temple. The main objective behind the construction of the
Nadapanthal is for the conduct of Bhagavatha Sapthaham,
Narayaneeyam, other religious speeches, cultural and art
programmes and procession with elephant and instrumentalists
during the festival. When the devaprasnam was conducted during
2012, it was specifically mentioned and instructed that there shall
not be any permanent or temporary structure on the eastern side
of the temple since it will obstruct the vision of the idol towards
the eastern side. This aspect was mentioned in Ext.P1 notice as
early as in the year 2012. Hence, the construction on the eastern
side of the temple is not in the interest of the deity or that of the
devotees. No devaprasnam was conducted to ascertain the wish
of the deity. Apart from that, there is already a big stage with a
green room available in the temple premises for conducting
cultural and art programmes. The Bhagavatha mandiram is there
from the year 2000 onwards, wherein the Bhagavatha Sapthaham
8
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
and Narayaneeyam were conducted. Hence, the construction of
the nadapanthal is of absolutely no use, and it amounts to a waste
of funds collected from the devotees. It will cause inconvenience
to the devotees during temple festival seasons since there is
insufficient space available after the construction of the
nadapanthal. The necessity for the construction of the
Nadapanthal was not taken into account by the Devaswom Board
while rendering Ext.P2 sanction. Now, through Ext.P5 notice, the
4th respondent had started to raise funds, and the petitioners
apprehend that construction will also be started immediately.
Hence, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition.
5. The 4th respondent in the DBP filed a counter affidavit
dated 15.06.2024 denying his responsibility with regard to cash
and financial dealings of the Temple Advisory Committee while he
was officiating as the President of the Temple Advisory Committee
of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple. Paragraphs 2 and 3
of that counter affidavit read thus:
“2. I was elected as the President of the temple advisory
committee of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple in
the year 2012. On being elected as President, I had orally
9DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853stated at that time itself to the committee that I cannot take
any responsibility with regard to cash and financial dealings
of the temple advisory committee and that I will not sign in
any of the cheques issued or received by the committee. All
the financial transactions were handled by the then
secretary and treasurer. As such I am not responsible for
the irregularities shown in the complaint.
3. In the meantime, there was a proposal by the then
Secretary that a new stage has to be built after demolishing
the existing stage in front of the temple. This was objected
by me then and there itself. Meanwhile I had been to
Mumbai to spend some time with my elder son. On
returning from Mumbai I came to know the new stage was
already built. Immediately, I decided to dissociate from the
committee and gave my resignation letter to the Secretary
on 19.11.2014. Moreover as per letter dated 28.05.2015
(Annexure 1 Pages 10-13) to the President of Cochin
Devaswom Board I along with other resigned committee
members had pointed out the irregularities conducted by
the Secretary and coterie of three members. As such I
would like to state that I was not involved with regard to
the financial dealings of the committee and hence I may be
discharged from the allegations in the complaint”.
6. On behalf of respondents 3 and 5, the 3 rd respondent,
who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024, filed a
counter affidavit dated 29.10.2024 in the DBP denying the
10
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
allegations raised against the Temple Advisory Committee while
he was officiating as the Secretary. Paragraph 2 of that counter
affidavit reads thus:
“2. It is respectfully submitted that I was the Secretary of
the Kshetra Upadesaka Samithy of the Sree Krishna Swamy
Temple, Poonithura for the period from 2012 to 2015. Then
Samithy had prepared the receipts and payments for the
period from 10-12-2012 to 31-03-2015, audited by
Chartered Accountant namely N.Ramesh and produced the
audited accounts along with all relevant records before the
Devaswom Board. The copy of the audited account has
been given to around 350 devotee families who contributed
to the renovation. The entire documents were produced
before the Devaswom office at Thrissur. On 07-07-2015 the
Special Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board issued a
letter vide A5- 4736/2015 directing the Samithy to produce
the records and accounts before the Devaswom Board. For
the said letter reply was given by the Samithy dated 12-07-
2015 pointing out that the wife of the Treasurer of the
Samithy is in Lakshore Hospital due to Cancer treatment
and requested time and it was informed that the records
will be submitted after 12-07-2015. True copy of the reply
dated 12-07-2015 submitted by the then Samithy to the
Special Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced
herewith and marked as Exhibit R-3(a). Accordingly the
Samithy had handed over all the records and the audited
11DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853account statement before the Devaswom Board. To the
knowledge of this respondent, the Devaswom Board has
audited the account and the one and only objection raised
is to the effect that the Secretary has only put an initial in
certain documents instead of the full signature. To the
knowledge of the petitioner a communication in this regard
was issued to the Samithy also and it is kept in the locker
of the Godrej Almirah kept in the green room. The keys of
the said Godrej Almirah has also handed over to the
Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara while vacating the
office. Subsequently what happened in the matter is not
within the knowledge of this respondent. Hence according
to me the accounts were audited and all the documents are
handed over to the office of the Cochin Devaswom Board
pursuant to the communication issued by the Special
Commissioner dated 07-07-2015. Hence there cannot be
any allegation against the then Samithy regarding the
auditing of the account. The allegations of the petitioner
before the Hon’ble Ombudsman are baseless and without
any bonafide. This was made clear by these respondents
before the Hon’ble Ombudsman through the statement as
evidenced from Annexure-03. Hence, the contention of the
petitioner is only to be rejected”.
7. The 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 filed a
counter affidavit dated 04.06.2024 opposing the prayers in the
writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(f)
12
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
documents. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus:
“3. lt is to be noted that the Poonithura Kottaram Temple is
an ancient temple with all structures of a big temple and
every year the number of devotees are increasing. Mainly
there are two rituals being performed in the temple in a
year. One is bagavatha sapthaham during April month and
secondly 10 days long festival during the Sreekrishna
Jayanthi (Ashtami Rohini). In those two functions, about
2,000 devotees would attend and for which every year a
temporary shed about 4,000 Sq. Ft. would be made. For
which the Samithi had to spend Rs.2,20,000/- would be
spend for the temporary shed. It is true that a bagavatha
manthiram which is having 1358 Sq. Ft. is existing in the
temple premises, but in that, for conducting a programme,
a platform stage of about 287 Sq. Ft, is to be made inside
for the above referred festivals and the devotees cannot
afford in the balance place. For the said purpose the
bagavatha manthiram is not sufficient. In addition to that
the petitioners herein had constructed a small stage with
400 Sq. Ft. in the property of the temple, which is also
insufficient for conducting the above two functions.
4. In addition to that a 9 days long navarathri rituals,
sanadana dharma classes are also being conducted in the
temple. Normally the bagavatha manthiram is being used
for stocking groceries and other materials for the purpose
of prasada oottu during Sapthaham and Sreekrishana
Jayanthi festival. The nadapantal and stage which are being
13DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853constructed by the Samithi is having 4,300 Sq. Ft. in 11
long pillars having 18 Ft height and hence no part of the
temple would be faded or blocked by the new construction.
5. It is to be noted that the respondents 1 to 3, after
conducting enquiry, as per its proceedings No.H12016/2024
dated 03.04.2024 has granted sanction for constructing the
said nadapantal in the temple. The true copy of the order
issued by the respondents 1 to 3 is produced herewith and
marked as Ext.R(4) b). It is further to be noted that the
permission of Tantri from Puliyannoor Mana has also
obtained for the purpose of the construction of nadapantal.
The true copy of the said permission of the Tantri dated
03.03.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.
R(4)(c). It is further to be noted that this respondent has
decided to construct the nadapanthal as per the directions
from Vezhaparambu mana. The true copy of the
measurement details issued by the famous Thachushastram
specialist P.P. Parameswaran Namboothiri of Vezhapara
mana dated 1/12/2023 is produced herewith and marked
as Ext. R(4) (d). The true copy of the layout of the present
construction is produced herewith and marked as
Ext.R(4)(e). The photographs showing the devotees
normally being participated in above referred functions is
produced herewith and marked as Ext.R(4)(f). This be the
true facts, the allegations in the writ petition are false and
incorrect. The allegation in para No.2 that while the 1 st
petitioner was working as the secretary of the temple
advisory committee, all renovations were completed is a
14DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853false story. The then temple advisory committee, especially
the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2 nd petitioner, had
acted at thereon whims and fancies and have removed the
year old Kottaram of the temple and reconstructed the
same with concrete and the same invited criticism from the
devotees of the temple. Then temple advisory committee
had committed huge misappropriation in the fund and due
to the same, they were compulsory dispersed by the
Devaswom Board. The further allegation that as per the
devaprasnam conducted in the temple, there had an
observation that no temporary or permanent construction
shall be made on the eastern side of the temple is false. It
has already stated that the present structure is proposed to
be constructed in 11 pillars in an open manner at height of
about 18 feet and which would not affect the view of the
temple or the deity in any manner. In addition to that there
is no such observation in the devapresnam to the extent
that no construction should be made in the eastern side of
the temple.
6. It is true that the then committee (2012-2015) had
made certain construction in the temple which invited
serious criticism from the public that old structures which
had to be protected as such by maintaining it, had been
removed and replaced with concrete structures. For doing
those works lakhs of Rupees were misappropriated”.
8. To this counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a reply
15
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
affidavit dated 06.07.2024, producing therewith Exts.P7 to P17
documents.
9. The 1st respondent in the writ petition filed a counter
affidavit dated 17.08.2024 opposing the prayers in the writ
petition and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(i). Paragraphs
3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus:
“3. It is true that the first petitioner was the secretary of
the temple advisory committee for the period commencing
from 2012 to 2015. A complaint was filed by one Binesh.K
against the first petitioner and two others before the
learned Ombudsman alleging that the previous committee
has not maintained proper accounts. The learned
Ombudsman submitted Report No. 3 of 2024 and DBP No.
23 of 2024 was registered by this Honourable Court. The
report submitted by the learned Ombudsman would show
that the Devaswom Board has already taken steps for
conducting audit after getting the records of the committee.
A report dated 14/03/2024 was filed by the internal audit
wing of the board. In this regard true copy of report dated
14/03/2024 submitted by the internal audit wing of Cochin
Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as
Ext.R1(a).
4. It is submitted that according to the petitioners there is
already a hall in existence on the north-western portion of
16
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
the temple for conducting Bhagavatha Sapthaham,
Narayaneeyam etc. It is further alleged that the present
temple advisory committee is constructing temporary shed
(panthal) for the purpose of conducting bhagavatha
sapthaham by spending lakhs of rupees unnecessarily. It is
also alleged that the said construction is in front of the
temple so as to obstruct the vision of the deity towards the
eastern side. According to the petitioners, the present
proposal of construction is absolutely an unnecessary
expenditure and not in the better interest of the temple. It
is submitted that those allegations are incorrect and the
same is stoutly denied by this respondent.
5. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent submitted a report
numbered as Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 17.11.2023 to the
Devaswom Commissioner, CDB as to the necessity of
constructing a nadapandal. Along with the report the 2 nd
respondent forwarded the report dated 28.10.2023 of the
Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara Devaswom. In this
regard true copy of report numbered as Ref. No. M4. 18/13
dated 17.11.2023 submitted by the 2 nd respondent to the
Devaswom Commissioner, CDB is produced herewith and
marked as Ext.R1(b). It is based on Ext.R1(b), Ext.P2 order
dated 22.12.2023 was issued. So, the Devaswom Officer
submitted a request dated 28.2.2024 to the Thanthri along
with the plan and measurement prepared by Vezhaparamb
Parameswaran Namboodiripad. In this regard true copy of
the plan and measurements prepared by Vezhaparamb
Paramewaran Namboodiripad is produced herewith and
17
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
marked as Ext. R1(c). The Thanthri of the temple issued
consent letter dated 3.3.2024 to the Devaswom Officer. In
this regard true copy of the consent letter dated 3.3.2024
issued by the Thanthri, Thripunithura Puliyannur Anujan
Namboothiripad is produced herewith and marked as
Ext.R1(d).
6. While so, the 4th respondent submitted letter No.
PKSKSK/ NP12/ 2023 dated 8.2.2024 to the Devaswom
Officer, Chakkamkulangara Devaswom to accord sanction
for removing existing small stage platform which is coming
inside the proposed nadapandal. In this regard true copy of
Letter No. PKSKSK/ NP12/2023 dated 8.2.2024 issued by
the 4th respondent to the Devaswom Officer,
Chakkamkulangara Devaswom is produced herewith and
marked as Ext.R1(e). The 2nd respondent by letter Ref. No.
M4. 18/13 dated 12.2.2024 forwarded Exhibit R1(e)
request to the Devaswom Commissioner. In this regard true
copy of letter Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated 12.2.2024 issued by
the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as
Ext. R1(f). By Order No. H1. 2016/2024 dated 03.04.2024,
permission was granted by the 1 st respondent. In this
regard true copy of Order No. H1.2016/2024 dated
03.04.2024 issued by the 1st respondent is produced
herewith and marked as Ext.R1(g).
7. It is submitted that a report was also called for from the
maramath wing. In this regard true copy of Report No. H1.
2016/2023 dated 27.5.2024 submitted by Assistant
18
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
Executive Engineer, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced
herewith and marked as Ext.R1(h).
8. It is submitted that on coming to know Ext. P5 notice
dated 28.3.2024 it was informed to the 4th respondent that
the proposal to display the name of any donor contributing
Rs.1 lakh will be displayed prominently cannot be done as
it is against the directions issued by this Honourable Court.
It is submitted that the apprehensions expressed in para 8
of the reply affidavit has no basis. The allegation in para 15
of the reply affidavit that routine morning abhishekam is
not being carried regularly and properly is incorrect. On
receipt of the reply affidavit, the 2 nd respondent obtained
a report from the Melsanthi of the temple. In this regard
true copy of the report dated 13.8.2024 of the Melsanthi of
temple is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(i). Ext.
R1(i) would show that the allegations in paragraph 15 of the
reply affidavit is incorrect”.
10. To this counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a reply
affidavit dated 02.10.2024, producing therewith Ext.P18
document. The 1st respondent again filed an additional counter
affidavit dated 07.12.2024, producing therewith Ext.R1(j)
document.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant in the
DBP, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition,
19
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing
Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the learned Amicus
Curiae for the learned Ombudsman and the learned counsel
appearing for the party respondents.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant in the DBP
submitted that the accounts of Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna
Temple for the period from 2012 were not submitted for audit by
the then Temple Advisory Committee, even though there was a
direction by the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.63 of 2015.
By pointing out Annexure-02 accounts statement provided by the
Temple Advisory Committee for the period from 01.04.2012 to
31.03.2013, the learned counsel argued that when the closing
balance as on 31.03.2013 was shown as Rs.22,764/, the opening
balance as on 01.06.2013 was shown as R.1,964/-. The accounts
in between this period are not submitted by the Temple Advisory
Committee of the relevant period.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3 rd and
5th respondents in the DBP would submit that the Committee had
handed over all the accounts to the Devaswom Board. It was kept
20
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
in the locker of the Godrej almirah kept in the green room, and
the keys of the almirah were also handed over to the Devaswom
Officer while vacating the office. What happened to them
thereafter is not known to the respondents. The present Temple
Advisory Committee is carrying out the construction of a
nadapanthal without properly obtaining the sanction and without
ascertaining the Devahitham. The construction will cause huge
inconvenience to the devotees.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom
Board would submit that every year, huge amounts are spent for
providing pandals for various festivals and functions in the
temples. The proposed Nadapanthal is to avoid these huge
expenses for temporary pandals each year. The consent letter
from the Thantri and plan from the approved Vastu Consultant
have also been obtained. The Assistant Executive Engineer gave
Ext.R1(h) report detailing all these facts to the Board. As far as
the accounts for the period from 2012 to 2015 are concerned, the
then Temple Advisory Committee has to hand over those accounts
for audit.
21
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
15. ‘Deva’ means God and ‘swom’ means ownership in
Sanskrit and the term ‘Devaswom’ denotes the property of God in
common parlance. [see: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another
v. State of Kerala and others – 2018 (1) KHC 536].
16. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950, was enacted for making provisions for the
administration, supervision and control of incorporated and
unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious
Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin
Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of
administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62,
the administration of incorporated and unincorporated
Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the
management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first
day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of
Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties
and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the
management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest
22
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section
62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1),
the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the
temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the
Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to
be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin.
17. Section 62A of the Act, inserted by Act 14 of 1990,
deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 62A, all
immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board
under sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall be dealt with as
Devaswom Properties. The provisions of the Kerala Land
Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as
in the case of Government lands. As per Section 62B, all
unassigned lands belonging to the Devaswom under the sole
management of the Board shall be deemed to be the property of
the Government for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy
Act, 1957 and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they
are applicable, apply to such lands.
23
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
18. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the
Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject
to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being
in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of
incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions
under its management in accordance with the objects of the
trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to
apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub-
section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their
control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational
uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the
Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of
the institutions which have to be met from the said fund.
19. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board.
As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform
the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see
that the regular traditional rites according to the practice
prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii)
24
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and
also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning
properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the
Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper
facilities in major temples for the devotees.
20. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction
in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction
belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1 st day
of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated
Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the
Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of
the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As
per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part
II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and
proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the
Devaswom Department.
21. Section 76A of the Act deals with formation of Temple
Advisory Committees in the temples under the Cochin Devaswom
25
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 76A, a committee for each
temple in the name “Temple Advisory Committee” (name of the
Temple)” may be constituted in order to ensure participation of
Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2), the Temple Advisory
Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by
the Board. As per sub-section (3), the composition of an Advisory
Committee under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed by rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any
practice, prevailing, if any.
22. Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 09.11.2011
and 13.11.2011 in DBP Nos.78 of 2011, the draft bye-law for the
constitution of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under
the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board was prepared by
the Board. The draft bye-law was finalised after considering the
objections in the meetings convened by the learned Ombudsman
on 30.06.2012 and 03.07.2012. In Report No.123 of 2012
submitted by the learned Ombudsman, certain suggestions were
made with regard to modification of some of the clauses. Various
parties have filed affidavits in DBP No.78 of 2011 incorporating
26
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
their suggestions in the matter. Thereafter, the Division Bench
finalised the bye-law with the modifications suggested in the order
dated 22.07.2013 in DBP No.78 of 2011 and the Board was
directed to file an action taken report producing therewith the bye-
law as modified in terms of the directions contained in that order.
23. The bye-law approved by the order of this Court dated
22.07.2013 in DBP Nos.8 of 2010 and 78 of 2011 was published
in Kerala Gazette, in terms of Section 123 of the Act. Review
petitions were filed seeking review of the order of this Court dated
22.07.2013. By the order dated 11.08.2015, those review
petitions were disposed of approving the amendments insofar as
Clause 25 of the bye-law is concerned. Thereafter, circular dated
16.06.2019 and circular dated 24.01.2019 were issued by the
Cochin Devaswom Board with regard to the functioning of the
Temple Advisory Committees. In terms of the directions issued by
this Court in the order in DBP No.31 of 2020, the Board made
certain suggestions regarding the amendment of the bye-law for
the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees.
24. As already noticed, as per sub-section (1) of Section
27
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
68 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other
law for the time being in force, the Cochin Devaswom Board shall
be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and
unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its
management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the
established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply
their funds and property for such purposes.
25. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachari
[(1979) 2 SCC 65], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of
the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the
fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It
is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the
Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the
manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his
own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to
the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was
necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision
reads thus;
“4. There is some controversy on the question whether
defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit
28DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500
on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase
it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust,
for defendants have led their evidence to show that the
property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which
was less than its market value, as it was meant for use
by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting
honestly when he palmed off the property to his son
soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated
July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that
Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was
his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with
reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent
man of business would conduct his own affairs. He
could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it
was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was
necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well
recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a
fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make
a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can
also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself
in any such position in which a conflict may arise
between his duty and personal interest, and so the
control of the trustee’s discretionary power prescribed
by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained
in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with
29DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853the trust property for his own profit or for any other
purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally
important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may
not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his
own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a
heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of
discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not
require much argument to proceed to the inevitable
further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the
aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by
making a sale in the name of the trustee’s partner or
son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly
benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes
the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without
any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without
obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is
the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged,
to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably
and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach
of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction
in an indirect manner. The sale in question has
therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High
Court committed an error of law in ignoring this
important aspect of the law although it had a direct
bearing on the controversy before it.”
(underline supplied)
30
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
26. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom
Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom
Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their
trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many
where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and
safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom
Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by
setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse
possession. This is possible only with the passive or active
collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating
the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government,
members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be
vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also
the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of
religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or
misappropriation.
27. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair
[(2013) 3 KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that
31
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge
Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the
courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the
religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further
noticed that the relevant principles under the Hindu law will show
that the deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there
are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol.
The High Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction and
the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the
jurisdiction.
28. From the perusal of the materials on record, especially
the report of the learned Ombudsman, we notice that though steps
have been taken for conducting audit of the accounts of the
Temple Advisory Committee of the Poonithura Kottaram Sree
Krishna Temple, after 2016, no such steps have been taken for
auditing the accounts from the year 2012 till 2015. According to
the Board, the accounts for the period 2012 to 2015 were not
32
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
submitted to the Board by the then Advisory Committee. The 3 rd
respondent, the previous Secretary of the Temple Advisory
Committee, filed the counter affidavit stating that all the accounts
were in the almirah in the Devaswom office at the time of their
vacating the office. However, the Devaswom Board took a stand
that those accounts were not received from the previous Temple
Advisory Committee. While going through these rival contentions
raised by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the
members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee of
Poonithura Kottaram Sree Krishna Temple cannot escape from
their liability to produce the accounts for the period of their tenure
for audit by taking a stand that the accounts were kept in the
almirah while vacating the office.
29. As far as the allegations raised in W.P.(C) No.18250 of
2024, we notice from the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st
respondent that the steps for the construction of a nadapanthal
were initiated after obtaining necessary permission from the
Board. The opinion of the Thantri was also obtained by the
Committee before approaching the Board. Ext.R1(h) report filed
33
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board shows that the
construction of the Nadapanthal is intended to avoid huge
expenses for the construction of temporary pandals every year.
30. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can
be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed
upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of
that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief
function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties
prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and
officers exercising public functions within the limit of their
jurisdiction.
31. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain
[(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ
of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the
party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some
statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the
Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of
34
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
mandamus can be issued have been stated in ‘The Law of
Extraordinary Legal Remedies’ by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr.
that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial
discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive,
specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law
upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such
duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy
and without which there would be a failure of justice.
32. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC
309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a
mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant
establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty
by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right
was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be
enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution
or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no
mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from
enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is
contrary to law.
35
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
33. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]
the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence
to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an
authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The
Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders
or directions which are contrary to what has been injuncted by
law.
34. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the law
down in the aforementioned judgments, we find absolutely no
merits in W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 to grant the reliefs in the form
of writs, by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
In the result, W.P.(C)No.18250 of 2024 stands dismissed.
However, DBP No.23 of 2024 is disposed of directing the 3rd and
5th respondents therein to visit the Devaswom office, where they
claim as kept the accounts of the Committee for the relevant
period, along with an Officer to be deputed by the 6 th respondent
in the writ petition, namely, the Deputy Director of the Kerala
36
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
State Audit Department and the officer deputed by the Cochin
Devaswom Board and to verify whether the accounts of the Temple
Advisory committee of the period 2012 to 2015 is kept in that
office as contended in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd
respondent. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom
Board, shall hear all the parties concerned and take a decision as
to the accounts of the period not submitted by the Temple
Advisory committee and place the same before the Board for
taking appropriate decision.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
37
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
APPENDIX OF DBP 23/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 01- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.10.2023
ANNEXURE 02- REPLY DATED 19.2.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
ANNEXURE 03- REPLY DATED 25.1.2024 BY THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
3 AND 5
ANNEXURE 04- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THEN OMBUDSMAN
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the reply dated 12-07-2015
submitted by the then Samithy to the Special
Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board
38
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18250/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE
SECRETARY TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATED 20-
11-2012
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN
DEVASWOM BOARD VIDE ORDER NO. H1/2016/23
DATED 22-12-2023 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF
EXT.P2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 30-01-2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COP OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PROPOSED NADAPANTHAL
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE
SAMITHY DATED 28-03-2024 THEREBY
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REQUESTED FROM THE DEVOTEES
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE OMBUDSMAN
FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
DATED NIL
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4( B) True copy of the order issued by the
respondents 1 to 3
Exhibit R4 (C) The true copy of the permission of the Tantri
dated 03.03.2024
Exhibit R4 (D) True copy of the measurement details issued
by the famous Thachushastram specialilst P.P.
Parameswaran Namboothiri of Vezhapara mana
dated 1/12/2023.
Exhibit R4 ( E) – true copy of the layout of the present
construction.
Exhibit R4( F ) The photographs showing the devotees normally
being participated in above referred
functions.
Exhibit R4 (A) True copy of the order passed by the Board
directing compulsory dispersal of the then
Samithy
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P7 True copy of the notice issued by the Temple
Advisory Committee for the period from 01-
39
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
04-2012 to 31-03-2015 whereby the audited
account was published to the knowledge of the
devotees
Exhibit P8 True copy of the notice issued by the then
Committee dated 20-11-2012
Exhibit P9 True copy of the notice dated 28-03-2024
published by the 4th respondent
Exhibit P10 True copy of the photographs showing the
place proposed for construction of the toilet
Exhibit P11 True copy of the photographs showing the
Vazhipadu Counter then existing
Exhibit P12 True copy of the photographs showing the
newly constructed Vazhipadu counter
obstructing the view of the main temple
Exhibit P13 True copy of the report from Birbal Sahani
Institute of Paleobotany dated 02-06-2015
Exhibit P14 True copy of the sketch of the Gopuram
prepared by V.P.Chitrabhanu Namboodiripadu,
Vezhaparambu Mana
Exhibit P15 True copy of the Order No.7811/2016 dated 29-
07-2016-KUS-204 issued by the Special
Devaswom Commissioner
Exhibit P16 True copy of the Order No.A5/10752/2018 dated
30-10-2018-KUS-310/18 issued by the
Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board
Exhibit P17 True copy of the list of Upadesaka Samithy
from 2022 onwards
True copy of the notice published by the
Exhibit P18 petitioners to the knowledge of the devotees
dated nil
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R 1 ( f ) True copy of letter Ref. No. M4. 18/13 dated
12.2.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( a ) True copy of report dated 14/03/2024
submitted by the internal audit wing of
Cochin Devaswom Board.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( b ) True copy of report numbered as Ref. No. M4.
18/13 dated 17.11.2023 submitted by the 2nd
respondent to the Devaswom Commissioner, CDB.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( c ) True copy of the plan and measurements
prepared by Vezhaparamb Paramewaran
40
DBP No.23 of 2024 and
WP(C)No.18250 of 2024 2025:KER:47853
Namboodiripad.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( d ) True copy of consent letter dated 3.3.2024
issued by the Thanthri, Thripunithura
Puliyannur Anujan Namboothiripad.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( e ) True copy of Letter No. PKSKSK/ NP12/ 2023
dated 8.2.2024 issued by the 4th respondent
to the Devaswom Officer, Chakkamkulangara
Devaswom
EXHIBIT R 1 ( g ) True copy of Order No. H1. 2016/2024 dated
03.04.2024 issued by the 1st respondent
EXHIBIT R 1 ( h ) True copy of Report No. H1. 2016/2023 dated
27.5.2024 submitted by Assistant Engineer,
Cochin Devaswom Board.
EXHIBIT R 1 ( i ) True copy of the report dated 13.8.2024 of
the Melsanthi of temple
EXHIBIT R 1 ( j ) True copy of report bearing No. H1. 2016/2023
dated 23.11.2024 of the Assistant Engineer,
Cochin Devaswom Board along with its
enclosures