'Huge Loss Of Deity's Properties': Kerala High Court Orders Enquiry Into Alleged Mismanagement At Manakkattu Devi Temple In Pallipad

The Kerala High Court recently directed the Devaswom Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the Sree Devi Bhuvaneswari of Manakkattu Devi Temple, Pallipad, and to take the appropriate follow-up action. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar was considering a writ petition that had been filed by certain devotees of the Temple seeking a mandamus to be issued to the Travancore Devaswom Board (1st respondent herein) to assume the management of the said Temple under the provisions of Section 37 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and also for conducting an enquiry into the mismanagement of the affairs of the Temple under Section 38 of the Act. 

"As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondents No.4 (the Deity) and 5 (the Bharana Samithy) only if two mandatory conditions, namely, there is mismanagement and the same is proved, the 1st respondent get jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. For deciding that, the 1st respondent should conduct the enquiry which the Board has already ordered through its officers, and reach a logical conclusion", it observed while allowing the petition.

The petitioners in this case had averred that the Temple had been in the list of grant-in-aid Temples administered by the then Rulers of Travancore and ought to have thus been included in the list of incorporated Devaswoms in Annexure-I of the Act, but had been omitted accidentally. The petitioners averred that while the Temple was being administered by the Devaswom Bharana Samithy, there had occurred repeated instances of mismanagement in the affairs of the Temple.

They pointed out that the assets of the Temple including Thiruvabharanam, were misappropriated by the persons at the helm of the affairs of the Temple. A crime had also been registered against the office bearers of the Bharana Samithy. Pursuant to demands for assumption of the Temple by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner (3rd respondent herein) tried to conduct an enquiry but the authorities of the Temple administration did not provide accounts and records for verification. The 1st respondent also did not take any steps in this regard, and it is in this light the writ petition had been filed. 

The petitioners contended that the the 1st respondent was obliged to invoke Section 37 of the Act and take over the Temple since firstly, the Temple in question is a grant-in-aid temple and hence, and incorporated Devaswom, which had been omitted from the Annexure to the Act only due to an accidental slip; secondly, that since the Bharana Samithi comprising representatives of four NSS Karayogams administers the Temple, it is a Hindu Religious Endowment under Section 3(c) of the Act, and lastly, due to the overwhelming materials evidencing the mismanagement of Temple administration. The petitioners pointed out that the immovable property belonging to the Temple was also lost due to the recalcitrant attitude of the Temple administration.

The Devaswom Board on its part, submitted that following the allegations of misappropriation and the requests from third parties for assumption of the Temple, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner was directed to conduct an enquiry. It was based on the enquiry reports that the decision not to take over the Temple was taken by the Board. On behalf of the Bharana Samithy, it was submitted that the misappropriation had been committed by the President and Secretary of the Bharana Samithy in their individual capacities. It was pointed out that action had been taken immediately on knowing the fact, and they were also removed from the posts. They thus contended that since there had not occurred any mismanagement on the part of the Bharana Samithy, the provisions of Section 37 of the Act could not have any application. 

The Court at the very outset, perused the Travancore Devaswom Board Manual, 1936, and discerned that while the Temple had been included in the list of grant-in-aid Devaswoms, it was however not included in Schedule-I to the Act which enlists the incorporated Devaswoms. It was therefore of the opinion that the fact that it was a grant-in-aid Devaswom prior to the enactment of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, did not have any relevance to the writ petition. 

The Court in this case, embarked on ascertaining as to whether the Temple in question is a Hindu Religious Endowment. It perused Section 2(b) of the Act, and ascertained that, 

"Every Hindu Temple where members of the Hindu community or any section thereof have right for worship is therefore a Hindu Religious Endowment. The only exception is religious institutions under the sole management of a single family. The proviso envisages that a religious institution managed by a fragmented family also is an exception". 

The Court found that in this case, the temple is a Hindu Religious Endowment, and accordingly, Sections 37 and 38 of the Act would apply to the same. 

The Court thus noted whether in light of the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board not to take over the temple, a direction could still be issued by the Court for the same, as had been prayed for. 

The Court noted that as per the facts, the enquiry was not conducted since the 5th respondent Samithy had denied access to the records in their custody, and accordingly they stated that no enquiry could be conducted. 

"The said approach of the Assistant Commissioner and the Finance Commissioner of the Devaswom Board is quite inappropriate", it observed. 

The Court noted that under Section 39 of the Act, the officers conducting enquiry under Section 38 would have the powers of a civil court. 

"Therefore, the officers, who are empowered to conduct enquiry, ought to have completed the enquiry and submit their reports. They should not have shied away by showing doubtful ignorance of their powers", it observed. 

The Court further rejected the argument that the mismanagement had been caused by the President and Secretary of the Samithy on an individual level, and that necessary remedial steps had been taken by the Samithy when the same came to its notice. 

"It may be true that once the misappropriation has come to the notice, necessary remedial steps were taken by the Bharana Samithy. But the fact remained that there occurred such a huge loss of properties of the Deity. It cannot be said that the mismanagement, which resulted in such a loss can be looked at the individual level only and it cannot be attributed to the institution", it observed. 

The Court went on to add, 

"there is an allegation that 85 Ares of land belonging to the 4th respondent-Deity is not now in the possession of the Temple. It is the definite plea of the Devaswom Board that 85 Ares of land in Sy.No.354/14 is shown in the revenue records as Manakkattu Devaswom Thanathu land. If so, the reason for loss of that property also may have to be answered by the management of the Temple. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the 1st respondent-Devaswom Board is obligated to hold an enquiry as provided under Section 38 of the Act". 

The petition was thus allowed. The enquiry was directed to be conducted with notice to the petitioners and all the affected persons.

"The enquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of getting a certified copy of this judgment", it was added. 

Advocates S. Krishnamoorthy, Sneha Rose, and P.S. Aruna appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The respondents were represented by the Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board Advocate G. Santhosh Kumar, and Advocates M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, S. Subhash Chand, P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, and Manu Vyasan Peter. 

Case Title: Rajaneesh Kumar R. & Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment