A.RAJESH vs DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM
- Court
- Kerala High Court
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 13541 OF 2013
PETITIONERS:
1 MR. M.C.KUNHUNNI RAJA
AGED 89 YEARS
S/O.M.C.KUNJIKAVU THAMPURATTY, 105,
SRI.RANJINI APPARTMENTS, PHASE IV, J.P. NAGAR,
BANNARGHATTA ROAD, BANGLORE-560 076.
*2 MR. A.C.VENUGOPALA RAJA,
AGED 86 YEARS
SON OF KUTTICHERIAMMA THAMBURATTY, DEVI PADOM,
VADAKKE NADA, ANGADI PURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.(DIED)
SECOND ADDL. PETITIONER K.C.JANARDHANAN RAJA,
AGED 84 YEARS, S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN BATTATHIRAPPAD,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT - KADANNAMANNA KOVILAKOM,
POST KADNNAMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
[THE FACT OF DEATH OF 2ND PETITIONER IS RECORDED AND
THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF THE
DECEASED ORIGINAL 2ND PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER DATED
12.06.2018 IN I.A.8727/2018.]
(DEATH RECORDED AND SUBSTITUTED)
SUBSTITUTED, M.C. SREEDHARA VARMA RAJA, SON OF M.C.
KUTTI THAMPURATTY, AGED 86 YEARS, TRUSTEE,
SREE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT 2/B, ACE SILVER SPRING
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
2
RES PARK, KACHERIKUNNU, MANKAVE, CALICUT-673 007.
[SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF THE PETITIONER TRUSTEE AS PER
THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN WP(C)
13541/2013.]
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SMT.ASHA BABU
SMT.ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
SHRI.G.RENJITH
SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 SRI.C.C.DINESH
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
TEMPLE ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321
(INSPECTOR, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.RENJITH
SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.05.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.13495/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 13495 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 R.BHASKARAN,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RAMACHATH HOUSE,
ERANTHOD, VALAMBOOR P.O., ANGADIPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 325,
(ULTHURAL VADHYAM, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).
2 M.P.SANTHOSH,
ULTHURAI VADHYAM, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*3 P.M.VENUGOPALA MARAR,
EDAKA VADHYAM, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
[THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER NO.3 DELETED
FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 20-08-2025 IN
IA 1/2025 IN WPC 13495/2022]
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
SMT.A.V.INDIRA
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
4
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
WELFARE OF SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBES &
DEVASWOM, PALAYAM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 006.
3 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006.
4 THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST BOX NO.5,
ANGADIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321.
5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, POST BOX NO.5,
ANGADIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321.
6 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321.
BY ADV.
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).13541/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
DBP NO. 89 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 A.RAJESH
ARANGATHU VEEDU, VALAMBOOR P. O.,
ANGADIPPURAM
2 B. RATHEESH
BAGAVATHY KULAM, VALAMBOOR P. O.,
ANGADIPPURAM
3 K.RAJAN
KILIYIL, THIROORKADU P. O.,
ANGADIPPURAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM
KOZHIKODE - 673006
2 ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
MALAPPURAM
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
6
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR
MALABAR DEVASWOM AUDIT OFFICE
*5 TRUSTEE, SREE THIROORKADU KUNNU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
[ADDL. R5 IS SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
14.12.2017 IN DBP 89/2017]
*6 M.C.KUNHUNNI RAJA 105, SREERANJINI APARTMENTS
AGED 40 YEARS, J.P.NAGAR, PHASE IV, BILEKAHALLI,
OFF BANNARGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560076
*7 K.C.JANARDHANA RAJA
KADANNAMANNA KOVILAKAM, KADANNAMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
[ADDL.R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
07.01.2019 IN I.A. NO.1612/2018 IN DBP NO. 89/2017]
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).13541/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 12598 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 RAJESH K.
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*2 JITHESH K.
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
3 VISHNU K.
TEMPLE SUPERVISOR, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 JISHNU K.
CLERK, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5 VISWANATHAN.P
PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
6 P. VINU
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
8
7 M.K.BIJESH
CLERK, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
*8 M.SREEDEVI
SWEEPER (CLEANER), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
9 P.V.CHANDRIKA
KAZHAKAM (GARLAND), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*10 R.BHASKARAN
ULTHURA VADHYAM, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
*11 M.P.SANTHOSH
ULTHURA VADHYAM, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
*12 P.M.VENUGOPALA MARAR,
EDAKKA VADHYAM, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
[PETITIONER NOS.2,10,11 & 12 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 15.02.2022 IN I.A.1/2022 IN
WP(C)12598/2020]
13 K.VIMALA,
SWEEPER(CLEANER) KEEZHEDOM TEMPLE, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
14 P.C.ARAVINDAKSHAN
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
15 A.PRAJESH
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
16 LAKSHMIDEVI
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
9
CLEANING (SWEEPER), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*17 M.DILEEP
PLANT OPERATOR, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
18 K.K.MURALEEKRISHNAN
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
19 KALYANI
CLEANING (SWEEPER), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
*20 V.INDIRADEVI
CLEANING (SWEPER), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
21 AJITHKUMAR
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
22 N.AJAY.VEDI/ATTENDER,
THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ANGADIPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*23 N.K.RAJESH
DRIVER/ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
[PETITIONER NOS.17 AND 23 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 28.09.2021 IN I.A.8/2020 IN
WP(C)12598/2020.)
24 K.VIJAYAKUMAR
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*25 YESODHA
CLEANING (SWEEPER), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
10
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
26 P.M.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
MELSANTHI, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*27 K.C.SUMATHY
SWEEPER(CLEANER), THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [DELETED]
[PETITIONERS 8, 20, 25 AND 27 ARE DELETED FROM THE
PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 11.11.2021 IN I.A.3/2021
IN WP(C)12598/2020]
28 A.C.KRISHNAKUMAR,
AUDIT ASSISTANT, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
29 K.BIJU
ATTENDER, THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
SMT.AMRUTHA K P
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DEVASWOM), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673020
3 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
11
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRY
4 THE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SHRI.K.G.RAJEESH
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.05.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).13541/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 23487 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 M. DILEEP
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAN M., RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE,
CHEMMANIYODE P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 N. K. RAJESH
S/O. LATE BALAN, NADUKANDI HOUSE, MARINGATH,
ANGADIPPURAM P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.
SRI.P.K.BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, (DEVASWOM),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
13
2
THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE - 673020.
3 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD, KOZHIKODE - 673020, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
4 THE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE.
5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.K.G.RAJEESH
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).13541/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 26462 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 M.SREEDEVI
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O. GOVINDHAN NAIR, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS SWEEPER
(CLEANER), THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321, RESIDING AT
MUNDANCHERI HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-679321.
2 K.C.SUMATHY,
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O.AYYAPPAN, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS SWEEPER (CLEANER),
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ANGADIPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321, RESIDING AT
KALATHUMCHALAYKKAL HOUSE, VALABOOR P.O., ANGADIPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679325.
3 V.INDIRADEVI,
AGED 57 YEARS
D/O.SIVASANKARAN, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS CLEANING
(SWEEPER), THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321, RESIDING AT
KILIGIL HOUSE, (ALPANGARA), ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-679321.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
15
4 YESODHA
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O. BALAN, WORKING AS CLEANING (SWEEPER),
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ANGADIPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321, RESIDING AT THATHANAMPULLY
P.O., KULLUKKALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679337.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANOOP V.NAIR
SRI.RAMESH CHAND
SMT.DEVI P.
SHRI.A.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673020.
3 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 THE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE.
5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SHRI.K.G.RAJEESH
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
16
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.05.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).13541/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
17
JUDGMENT ‘CR’
W.P.(C) Nos. 13541 of 2013, 12598 of 2020, 23487 of 2021, 26462 of
2021, 13495 of 2022 & DBP No.89 of 2017
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
All these writ petitions and DBP have been filed with respect to the
administration of Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple, Angadippuram,
Malappuram (‘the temple’ for brevity). The said temple is a Hindu religious
institution within the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951 (‘the Act’ for brevity).
2. W.P.(C) No.13541/2013 was preferred by Sri.M.C. Kunhunni Raja,
the hereditary Trustee of the temple and one Sri.A.C. Venugopal Raja,
challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer by the Malabar Devaswom
Board. Subsequently, the writ petition was amended as per the order in I.A.
No.12612/2017.
3. The other writ petitions were filed by the employees of the temple.
DBP No.89/2017 was registered suomotu on the basis of a complaint filed by
some devotees alleging corruption and maladministration in the temple.
4. Since all the matters are connected with the administration of the
temple, the appointment of the Executive Officer and the appointment of
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
18
employees of the said temple, all these matters are taken together and disposed
of by a common judgment. W.P.(C) No.13541/2013 is taken as the leading case,
and the parties and the exhibits are hereinafter referred to as shown in the said
writ petition, unless otherwise specifically stated.
Brief facts and counter
W.P.(C) No.13541/2013
5. The administration of the temple is governed by Ext.P1 Scheme
th
framed on 4 May, 1966 in O.A. No.15/1965. As per Ext.P1 Scheme, the
administration of the affairs of the temple shall vest in the family of the
hereditary trustee, who is the senior most male member of the ‘Valluvanadu
Swaroopam’ comprising of four families, namely; the Aiyranazhi Kovilakam, the
Mankada Kovilakam, the Kadanamanna Kovilakam and the Aripra Kovilakam.
The senior most male member assumes hereditary title of the ‘Valluvanattukara
Vallabha Valiya Raja’ or ‘Valluvakonathiri’.
6. The Valiya Raja is the hereditary trustee as per Ext.P1 Scheme.
The 1st petitioner Sri. M.C. Kunhunni Raja is the ‘Valluvanattukara Vallabha
Valiya Raja’ and thus the hereditary trustee of the temple.
7. It is stated in the writ petition that the first petitioner is presently
residing in Bangalore, and therefore, the second petitioner, Sri.A.C. Venugopal
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
19
Raja is managing the affairs of the temple as Power-of-attorney holder of the 1st
petitioner.
8. Sri. Bhanunni Raja, the predecessor-in-title of the 1st petitioner,
died on 13.05.2013, and thus, the 1st petitioner became the hereditary trustee of
the temple. The first petitioner executed Ext.P2 Power-of-attorney in favour of
nd
the 2 petitioner Sri. Venugopal Raja. The factum of execution of
Power-of-attorney was communicated to the 1st respondent, the Commissioner,
Malabar Devaswom Board, as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) dated 21.05.2013 and
13.04.2013, respectively. The factum of assumption of charge by the 1st
petitioner was intimated to the 1st respondent by Ext.P4 communication dated
15.05.2013.
9. It is further contended in the writ petition that Sri.C.Vinod Kumar
took charge as the Executive Officer of the temple on the basis of an order
bearing No.J5/2317/2013/MDB. The petitioners have produced Ext.P5, a true
copy of the notice as per which the Executive Officer assumed charge.
10. According to the petitioners, by the appointment of the Executive
Officer, the administration of the temple is divested from the ‘Valluvanadu
Swaroopam’. According to the petitioners, the appointment of the Executive
Officer is illegal and ultra vires.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
20
11. In the meanwhile, this Court had passed an order directing that the
Executive Officer has already assumed charge and he will discharge the duties
pending disposal of the writ petition. Sri. Surendra Kurup, the Executive Officer,
who was appointed by the trustee, was discharging his duties satisfactorily. In
nd
the meanwhile, it is contended that, vide Ext.P6 order, the 2 respondent,
Malabar Devaswom Board, under the guise of the implementation of the interim
nd
order of this Court dated 31.07.2017 has removed the 2 petitioner, Venugopal
Raja, from the post of hereditary trustee.
12. It is in the said backdrop, W.P.(C) No.13541/2013 is preferred
seeking the following reliefs :-
“1) To declare and hold that the appointment of an Executive
Officer at the Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple
by the 1st respondent on the alleged strength of an order
bearing No.J5/2317/2013/MDB is illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and ultra vires.
2) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
direction and call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to
quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and
unconstitutional.
3) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ,
direction or order and direct the 1st respondent to issue
necessary and appropriate orders to restore the status quo
ante qua Ext.P5.
3(a) To call for the records leading upto Exhibit P6 and quash the
same by the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction.”
13. The 1st respondent, the Commissioner-Malabar Devaswom Board,
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
21
has placed on record a counter affidavit. It is contended that the Executive
Officer, vide R1(a) order dated 25.05.2013, was appointed as a stop-gap
arrangement in order to avoid standstill and vacuum in the administration of the
temple. Sri. A.C. Bhanunni Raja, a hereditary trustee, expired on 13.05.2013.
The 1st respondent received a letter dated 16.04.2013 from the President,
Vallabha Kshema Samithi, stating that the 1st petitioner Sri. M.C.Kunhunni Raja
has decided to appoint the 2nd petitioner as his power-of-attorney holder to
carry out the administration of the temple. Subsequently, the Board received a
letter dated 17.04.2013 stating that Sri. N.A. Krishna Kumar has assumed the
charge of the temple. As per Ext.R1(c) communication dated 02.05.2013, has
informed the trustee that only the trustee or his fit person or the Manager
approved by the Board is competent to make correspondence in the temple
matters.
14. It is further contented that the Commissioner has received several
complaints and mass petitions about the illegal and the unauthorised actions of
Sri. Bhanunni Raja and Krishna Kumar with a request to desist from appointing
the said Krishna Kumar as fit person of the trustee. The 1st petitioner has sent
Ext. R1(e) email dated 13.05.2013 stating that he is next in the line of succession
to the trustee and he is prepared to take over the administration. It was further
informed that he had given power-of-attorney to the 2nd petitioner Sri. A.C.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
22
Venugopal Raja. Ext.R1(f) is the reply sent by the Commissioner to the 1st
petitioner, stating that a fit person can be appointed only after taking charge as
the trustee of the temple and the duties of the trustee cannot be entrusted to
another person by way of a power-of-attorney.
15. By Ext. R1(g) letter, the power-of-attorney holder was also
informed that the assumption of charge by him is illegal and directed the
power-of-attorney holder to hand over the charge to the trustee or the fit person
approved by the Board.
16. It is further stated in the counter that, if the trustee is unable to
carry out the administration of the temple for any reason, he may duly propose
the appointment of a fit person by submitting an application in that regard
before the Deputy Commissioner. Ext.R1(a) order appointing Executive Officer
under Section 20 of the Act is issued bona fide and intended to protect the best
interests of the Devaswom and there is no ulterior motive.
17. The 1st respondent has also filed an additional counter after the
amendment of the writ petition refuting the additional pleadings. It is denied
that the 1st petitioner has been removed from the post of hereditary trustee.
Pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 31.07.2017, Sri. C.C. Dinesh
took charge as Executive Officer of the temple on 01.08.2017. He is discharging
the duties in accordance with the scheme. Further, Ext.P6 order was passed
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
23
consequent to the interim order of this Court dated 31.07.2017.
18. It is contended that Sri. Surendra Kurup who was appointed by the
trustee has carried out the administration of the temple from 02.01.2012 to
30.07.2017 has conducted several works unauthorisedly contravening the
provisions of the Act and Rules. Moreover, serious illegalities and irregularities
were reported in the Audit Report for the year 2013. Further the administration
of the temple was carried out through a power-of-attorney and transactions
worth 1 crore are made without proper sanction.
19. It is further stated in the counter that certain appointments were
made in the temple violating the orders of the Commissioner. Sri. Surendra
Kurup was appointed on contract basis and subsequently approved with effect
from 02.01.2013 has been given annual increment of Rs. 6000/- without any
norms and specific sanction. The appointment of Manager requires approval
from the Board as per the provisions of the scheme, but violating the provision
Sri. Surendra Kurup had been continuing unlawfully and he had received Rs.
2,38,710/- towards his salary. The respondent has also produced R1(h)
preliminary report dated 05.08.2017. Ext.R1(i) is the true copy of the Audit
Report dated 19.12.2015 wherein gross violation of the provisions of the Act and
Rules, serious illegalities were noted. Maramath works were done violating the
Rules framed under Section 100(2)(q)(r) and (s) of the Act.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
24
20. The Commissioner has rejected the proposal of the trustee for the
approval of the appointment of the employees of the Devaswom. It is further
stated in the counter that there are numerous complaints of corruption, for
making illegal appointments in the temple. A special team constituted by the
Commissioner conducted an enquiry on the complaints received and submitted
Ext.R1(i)(sic) [correct exhibit is (R1(j)] report dated 09.08.2017.
21. The 2nd respondent A.C. Venugopal Raja has filed a reply affidavit
denying the allegations in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the allegations
of corruption, maladministration and illegal appointments are false.
DBP 89 of 2017
22. This DBP was registered suo motu on the basis of a complaint
submitted by an association of devotees, which contains several allegations of
corruption. It is stated in the complaint that the devotees are disappointed due
to the fight between the Malabar Devaswom Board and the trustee. The Board is
trying to take over the management of the temple and the trustee is trying to
retain the administration. It is also stated in the complaint that the Audit
Department has pointed out several objections in the Audit Report.
WP(C) No. 12598/2020
23. This writ petition is preferred by one Rajesh K. and 28 others. The
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
25
petitioners are the employees of the 4th respondent Thirumandhamkunnu
Bhagavathy Devaswom, Angadippuram. According to the petitioners, they have
been appointed in the temple during 2007-2013 by the then hereditary trustee
on a regular basis after a selection process.
24. According to the petitioners, they have been appointed as per the
provisions of the scheme framed for the administration of the temple. As per the
scheme, the trustee of the temple shall have the power to appoint the servants
of the temple, with the power to fine, suspend, remove, or dismiss such servants
for sufficient cause.
25. After the filing of the writ petition, petitioners 2, 8, 10 to 12, 17,
20, 23, 25, and 27 were deleted from the party array as per separate interim
orders of this Court.
26. The petitioners contend that vide Ext.P1 order dated 30.06.2014,
the 4th respondent has stopped the disbursal of salary to the petitioners, on the
ground that the Devaswom Board, by order dated 16.06.2014, rejected the
approval of 41 employees appointed in the temple.
27. Ext.P2 is the true copy of the order of the Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board, rejecting the approval. Thereafter, the petitioners approached
the Government and preferred Ext.P3 revision. The Government has not
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
26
considered the revision and no stay was granted. The petitioners continued to
work in the temple without getting any salary. The petitioners further stated
that the Malabar Devaswom Board, as per Ext.P4 minutes dated 07.05.2015,
resolved to consider the recommendation of the Standing Committee to approve
and to regularise the service of the employees working under the Devaswom as
on 28.02.2024. According to the petitioners, even after the Ext.P4 minutes the
Malabar Devaswom Board did not take any steps to regularise the petitioners in
service.
28. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and instituted a
writ petition as WP(C) No. 17010 of 2014, seeking regularisation. By Ext.P5
judgment dated 05.11.2019, this Court has disposed of the writ petition directing
the revisional authority to decide the issue by itself. The petitioners asserted
that despite Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, the 1st respondent, State, has
refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and relegated the whole issue to the
original authority, i.e. the Commissioner, whose decision was under challenge
before the State. Ext.P6 is the true copy of the order issued by the 1st
respondent. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of the temple issued Ext.P7 order
terminating the petitioners from service.
29. The 3rd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board has filed a detailed
counter statement denying the allegations in the writ petition. It is stated in the
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
27
counter that the former trustee in charge of the temple had submitted a
representation dated 09.08.2013 before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner,
Malabar Devaswom Board, seeking approval for the appointment of 42
employees. It is also stated in the representation that 102 employees were
working in the temple and among them only 60 employees were approved under
the schedule of establishment sanctioned by the 3rd respondent Board. The
Board has considered the representation and issued Ext.P2 order declining to
approve the new appointments, since the employees were appointed illegally and
also against the rules, circulars and orders issued by the 3rd respondent Board.
30. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioners preferred WP(C)
No.17010/2014. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent
State to consider the revision petition on merits, and accordingly, Ext.P6 order
was passed. It is stated in the counter that the petitioners were illegally
appointed in the temple pursuant to the decision of the trustee. Such illegal
appointments have created a huge financial burden on the temple. Corruption in
such appointments are strongly suspected. Two specific reasons were stated in
the counter to indicate that the appointments made in the temple are illegal.
Firstly, the fresh appointments were made towards non-sanctioned posts and
secondly, appointments were made without observing any fair and transparent
selection procedures.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
28
31. Numerous complaints were received by the Board about the illegal
appointments and corruption. The contention of the petitioners that they have
been appointed on a regular basis after due process of selection is absolutely
false. It is also contended that Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent in
compliance with Ext.P5 judgment of this Court.
32. It is also submitted that as per the approved Schedule of
Establishment, there are 73 sanctioned posts. At present, 57 persons in regular
service are working in the sanctioned posts. Remaining posts are vacant due to
retirement, promotion, dismissal and resignation. 17 appointments were illegally
made, without observing any formalities and 27 persons were engaged against
non-sanctioned posts. Pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent, the 5th
respondent has issued an order terminating 27 persons.
33. It is pointed out that the Trustee has no authority to alter the
schedule of establishment, without prior sanction of the Board under Rule 10 of
the Rules framed under section 100(2)(y) of the Act. The power of the Trustee to
make appointments against sanctioned posts cannot be termed as authority to
create new posts in the temple and without taking prior permission from the
Board. It is submitted that though no permission is required for filling up an
existing vacancy, for creation of new posts prior sanction is necessary. Under
Rule 10 of the Rules under Section 100 (2)(y) of the Act, the Board has been
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
29
vested with the power and authority for overseeing the appointments in temples
paying salary from temple funds, so that any unnecessary and illegal
appointments which may deplete temple funds, can be checked.
34. It is stated that as per Law, the Trustee has to furnish a proposal
for creation of post. The proposal has to be scrutinized to verify the necessity
and essentiality by the authorities under the Act. The Trustee is bound to notify
the vacancies, after obtaining sanction for creation of post and make
appointments in accordance with Law. The Trustee has to frame a schedule of
establishment for the approval of the Board and prepare the Section 25 Register
showing the sanctioned posts, pay scales, and regular appointments against each
post, and submit the same for approval. The same cannot be altered without the
prior sanction of the Board.
35. It is also submitted that the power given under Section 48 is also
subject to the supervisory and regulatory control by the competent authorities
under the Act. Section 18 makes this position very clear, which empowers the
Commissioner to examine the regularity, legality, correctness and propriety of
any action or proceedings taken by the Trustee in respect of the administration
of the temple, against which no suit or appeal is provided to any Court, to annul,
reverse or modify or remit for reconsideration. Section 20 enjoins a duty on the
Commissioner for overall superintendence and control over the religious
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
30
Institutions, which include the power to pass any order for ensuring that the
funds and properties of the temple are duly appropriated for the purposes for
which the temple is found. Therefore, it is submitted that the Malabar Devaswom
Board, has ample power and authority under the Act to cancel the proceedings
for creation of unnecessary posts or to terminate the illegal appointments.
36. In Ext.P6 order, it is made clear that the action of the trustee in
making appointments towards non-sanctioned posts is totally illegal.
WP(C) No. 23487 of 2021
37. The 1st petitioner Sri. M. Dileep is the Plant Operator and the 2nd
petitioner Sri. N.K. Rajesh is the Driver of the temple. They were petitioner Nos.
17 and 23 in WP(C) No. 12598 of 2020. Later, they withdrew the writ petition
with a liberty to file a fresh petition.
38. According to the writ petitioners, they were terminated from the
service as per Ext.P6 orders. This writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P6
order of the Government with a direction to reinstate them into the service.
39. In this matter, the 4th respondent, the trustee of the temple
Devaswom, filed a counter affidavit contending that the Commissioner of Malabar
Devaswom Board has no powers either to appoint or to terminate the employees
of the Devaswom, which are exclusively vested with the trustee. The appointing
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
31
authority is the trustee and therefore, the power of termination is also vested
with the trustee.
40. The Executive Officer, Sri. C.C. Dinesh, appointed by the Malabar
Devaswom Board has also filed a counter affidavit contending that the trustee
has absolutely no power to create any post without prior sanction of the Board.
The appointments made by the trustee to a post, which is neither sanctioned nor
approved by the Board shall be invalid.
41. The 1st respondent State of Kerala has filed a counter affidavit
contending that the petitioners were illegally appointed as the employees of the
temple as per the illegal decision of the trustee and huge financial burden is
caused to the temple by those illegal appointments.
WP(C) No.26462 of 2021
42. The writ petitioners herein are also the employees of Sree
Thirumandhamkunnu Temple. The petitioners 1 and 2 namely M. Sreedevi and
K.C. Sumathi were appointed temporarily on a daily wage basis to the two
vacancies that arose in the cadre of sweeper due to the retirement of Smt.
Thankammu Amma and Smt. Chakky from 01.11.2011 and 06.01.2012
respectively. They were given permanent appointment on 21.01.2013 as
Sweeper (Attender Grade) by Ext.P2 order of the trustee.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
32
43. The petitioners 1 and 2 successfully completed their probation on
20.01.2014 and were given confirmation on 31.01.2014 by Ext.P3 order.
44. The 3rd petitioner Smt. V. Indiradevi was appointed as Sweeper in
the cleaning section of the temple in permanent vacancy which arose due to the
voluntary retirement of her mother Smt. Devayani as per Ext.P4 order of the
Devaswom. After the completion of probation, the 3rd petitioner was confirmed
in the service as per Ext.P5 order dated 31.01.2016.
45. It is further stated in the writ petition that the husband of the 4th
petitioner Smt. Yasodha, while working as an Elephant Mahout was seriously
injured in an elephant attack. On the basis of the representation submitted by
her husband, the 4th petitioner was appointed in the cleaning section as
Sweeper as per Ext.P7 order. Her appointment was on compassionate grounds
not in a sanctioned post.
46. The Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board has rejected approval
of their appointment as evident from Ext.P10 letter.
WP(C) NO. 13495 of 2022
47. This writ petition is filed by R. Bhaskaran and two others. The
petitioners 1 and 2 were rendering service in the temple as ‘Ulthurai Vadhyam’
and the 3rd petitioner was rendering his service as ‘Edakka Vadhyam’. The
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
33
petitioners assert that their service was indispensable for carrying out the
religious ceremony of the temple. The petitioners were appointed by hereditary
trustees between 2007-2013. This writ petitioners have also challenged the
order of the revisional authority (Revenue Devaswom Department) relegating the
matter to the Commissioner despite specific direction from this Court.
Judicial Evaluation
WP(C) No. 13541/2013
48. The principal challenge in WP(C) No.13541/2013 is with regard to
the appointment of Executive Officer in the temple. The 1st petitioner in this
matter is the trustee of the temple. Sri. K. Ramkumar, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the appointment of
Executive Officer is illegal and arbitrary.
49. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners as per Ext.P1
scheme the ownership of the temple is vested with the Swaroopam and the
administration with the senior most male member as the hereditary trustee. The
appointment of Executive Officer by the Commissioner would amount to the
usurpation of rights of the trustee. Furthermore, as per Ext.P1 scheme only the
trustee has the power to appoint an Executive Officer.
50. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext. P5 notice by which
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
34
the Executive Officer assumed charge of the temple and Ext.P6 proceedings of
the Commissioner directing the Executive Officer to take charge of the temple
are illegal.
51. On the other hand, Sri.R. Lekshmi Narayanan, learned Standing
Counsel for the Board, submitted that the Executive Officer was appointed in the
temple as a stop-gap arrangement to avoid a vacuum in the administration of
the temple, by invoking the powers of superintendence and control under
Section 20 of the Act. The Board has ample powers under Section 20 of the Act
to pass appropriate orders .
52. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of
this Court in A.C. Bhanunni v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments
1
(Admn.) Department . In A.C. Bhanunni (supra) , this Court had occasion to
examine the scope and ambit of Section 20 of the HR & CE Act in detail. A
coordinate Bench of this Court in A.C. Bhanunni (supra) observed that the
hereditary trustee is not under the absolute control or is an employee of the
Board.
53. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court in
the dictum laid down in Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar
1
2011 SCC OnLine Ker 2907
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
35
2
Devaswom Board . In Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri (supra), this
Court after a detailed evaluation of the relevant provision of the Act observed
that the Devaswom Board cannot usurp into the powers of the trustee by
appointing a full-time Executive Officer invoking the powers under Section 20 of
the Act. The relevant paragraphs of Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri ’s
case (supra) reads as follows:
“65. The powers vested in the Board under S.20 of the HR & CE
Act are to pass such orders for the supervision of the affairs of the
temple. The powers conferred on the Commissioner under S.20 of
the Act are subject to the other provisions of the Act, and consist
of general superintendence and control over the administration of
religious endowments so as to ensure proper administration and
due appropriation of the income. The word superintendence is not
defined in the Act.
66. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Advanced Law Lexicon defines the word
"Superintendence" in the following manner:
" Superintendence -- means the act of superintending, care, and
oversight, for the purpose of direction, and with authority to
direct."
67. The words "superintendence" and "control" presuppose two
authorities, i.e., one authority to exercise the powers and
discharge the duties, and another authority to supervise and
control the affairs of the former.
68. In the instant case, the authority invested with the powers of
superintendence and control has appointed an Executive Officer to
discharge the duties of the original authority. The word
"superintendence and control" are not defined in the HR & CE Act.
Therefore, those words should be interpreted in its general and
literal meaning.
69. If there is maladministration, misfeasance or mismanagement
by the Manager of the temple, who is acting for and on behalf of
2
2026 KHC 270
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
36
the Trustee appointed as per Ext.P1 scheme, it is open for the
Board to act in accordance with S.45 of the Act. But the Board has
not opted to invoke S.45 of the HR & CE Act; instead, the
respondent Board has issued Ext.P6 order by an indirect method
to perform the functions or discharge the duties of the original
authority, which in our considered view, is impermissible.”
54. In the instant case, Ext P1 is the scheme framed on 04.05.1966
under Section 58 of the Act. It would be useful to extract the relevant provisions
of the scheme for easy reference.
SCHEME
“1. This Scheme shall come into force from the date of its
publication.
2. The administration of the affairs of Sri.
Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Temple, Angadipuram,
Perintalmanna Taluk, Palghat District the shrines attached thereto
and all the properties movable and immovable which belong to or
have been may thereafter be given, dedicated or endowed thereto
shall subject to the provisions of this Scheme vest in the family of
the hereditary trustee.
3. The trustee shall appoint an Executive officer, with the
approval of the Deputy Commissioner on a salary to be fixed by
him. The conditions of service of the Executive officer shall be
regulated by the rules framed under the Act. The present Manager
shall the first Executive Officer appointed under this Scheme.
3(a). If the trustee fails to appoint an Executive officer
within one month from the date of coming into force of this order,
the appropriate authority under the Act shall have power to
appoint an Executive Officer and in such a case, he shall be under
the Disciplinary control of the Department.
4. The Executive officer shall work under the supervision of
the Trustee and the Trustee shall have the power for good and
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
37
sufficient cause to suspend, remove or dismiss the Executive
officer from service. But he shall have a right of appeal to the
Deputy Commissioner.
5. The Executive Officer shall before joining duty furnish
such Security as may be determined by the Trustee not lower
than that fixed by the rules made in this behalf.
6(a). The Executive Officer shall conduct the day-to-day
affairs of the Temple including the proper performance of daily
services and periodical festivals and shall collect the rents and
other dues to the temple and make necessary disbursements
under the orders of the Trustee.
(b) He shall maintain regular accounts of all receipts and
disbursements supported by proper vouchers and may retain with
him the temple funds to the extent of Rs. 200/- and money on
excess of Rs. 200/- shall be deposited in the name of the temple
in the post office Savings Bank or any other Banks approved by
the Deputy Commissioner. The Trustee shall have the power to
operate on the Bank account.
7. The trustee shall have the power to appoint all other
Servants of the temple with power to fine, suspend, remove or
dismiss any such servant of the temple for good and sufficient
causes. An appeal against the order of the Trustee shall lie to the
Deputy Commissioner.”
55. Ext. P1 scheme would provide that the trustee shall appoint an
Executive Officer with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. Clause (3) of
the scheme makes it clear that the present Manager shall be the first Executive
Officer appointed under the scheme.
56. Clause 3(a) of the scheme states that if the trustee fails to appoint
an Executive Officer within one month, the appropriate authority shall have the
power to appoint an Executive Officer. In such cases, Executive officers shall be
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
38
under the disciplinary control of the Department.
57. Clause (4) of the scheme enjoins that the Executive Officer shall
work under the supervision of the trustee.
58. On going through Ext.P1 scheme, it is clear that the power to
appoint an Executive Officer primarily vests with the trustee and only when the
trustee fails to act in accordance with the scheme, the Board can appoint an
Executive Officer for the administration of the affairs of the temple. In other
words, the powers of the Board to appoint an Executive Officer as per the
scheme is limited.
59. We have carefully gone through Ext.R1(a), the proceedings of the
Commissioner, which is under challenge, whereby Sri. C. Vinodkumar is
appointed as Executive Officer of the temple in full additional charge. In R1(a)
order, it is stated that the trustee of the temple Sri. A.C. Bhanunni Raja expired
on 13.05.2013. The 1st petitioner A.C. Kunhunni Raja is the person claiming
trusteeship, who is next in the line of succession. As the 1st petitioner is in
Bangalore, he executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the 2nd petitioner
Venugopal Raja. The stand of the Board is that a trustee cannot execute a
power-of-attorney for the administration of the affairs of the temple; instead he
can only appoint a fit person as per the provisions of the Act. In order to avoid
the vacuum and standstill in the administration of the temple, an Executive
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
39
Officer was appointed as a stop-gap arrangement.
60. On going through Ext.R1(a) proceedings, it could be seen that the
Executive Officer is appointed for an indefinite period. If the intention of the
Commissioner is to avoid a standstill in the administration, the appointment of
the Executive Officer can only be for a limited period. In the instant case, it
seems that the appointment is for an indefinite period, until further orders.
61. This Court by interim order dated 31.07.2017 has permitted the
interim arrangement to be continued during the pendency of the writ petition.
62. In the present case, the Executive Officer appointed by the Board
in 2013, and thereafter his successors, have continued to administer the affairs
of the temple for an inordinately long period of nearly thirteen years. Such
prolonged continuation of an Executive Officer effectively eclipses the rights of
the hereditary trustee to administer the affairs of the temple in accordance with
the provisions of the Scheme and the governing statute. The power to appoint
an Executive Officer is intended to meet exceptional situations and cannot be
exercised in a manner that results in a permanent or indefinite displacement of
the hereditary trustee. If the Board is of the view that prevailing circumstances
warrant the appointment of an Executive Officer, such appointment must
necessarily be for a definite and specified period. This would ensure continuity in
administration while safeguarding the rights conferred upon the hereditary
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
40
trustee under the Scheme and the statute. The Board is, therefore, duty-bound
to periodically review the circumstances that necessitated the appointment of the
Executive Officer. Only upon a conscious evaluation and a finding that the
circumstances giving rise to the administrative impasse continue to subsist can
the term of the Executive Officer be extended, and even then only for a further
specified period. Indefinite extensions, without periodic review and application of
mind, would be inconsistent with the statutory framework and the scheme
governing the administration of the temple.
63. In the instant case, the Executive Officer is appointed by Ext.R1(a)
order for an indefinite and unspecified period, that too without giving notice and
affording an opportunity to the hereditary trustee of the temple, who is legally
entitled to manage the affairs of the temple.
64. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the
law laid down by this Court in A.C. Bhanunni (supra) and Edamana
Vasudevan Namboothiri (supra), we hold that Ext.R1(a) proceedings of the
Commissioner and all consequential orders are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be
quashed.
DBP No. 89/2017
65. The core issue involved in this DBP relates to corruption,
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
41
maladministration, misfeasance, and mismanagement in the temple.
Furthermore, it is stated in the complaint that there is a tug of war between the
trustee of the temple and the Board with respect to retaining control and taking
over the management.
66. The complainants in the DBP have highlighted that illegal
appointments were made in the temple through corrupt means. Furthermore,
the interests of the devotees/Bakthas are being disregarded and neglected by
the trustee and the Board.
67. As per Ext.P1 scheme, the eldest male member of the Swaroopam
is entitled to hold the trusteeship of the temple by way of succession. In many
cases they are Octogenarians, Septuagenarians, who are physically disabled to
effectively manage the affairs of the temple. Naturally, they may entrust the
task of administration to a fit person from inside or outside the family.
68. After the death of each Valiyaraja, there would be some standstill
and gaps in the administration of the temple, which may adversely affect the
welfare and well being of the deity and the devotees. Admittedly, the temple is
administered as per Ext.P1 scheme framed in the year 1966. Many of the
provisions of the scheme are obsolete, old and ineffective for the smooth
conduct of the administration of the temple. For instance, clause 6(b) states that
the Executive Officer may retain temple funds to the extent of Rs. 200/- and to
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
42
deposit the excess amount in bank. Moreover, the eldest male member of the
Swaroopam will administer the temple as the trustee, who often takes decisions
independently without any consultative process with the other members of the
family. In other words, the entire power is concentrated on a single individual,
which often lead to corruption and mismanagement.
69. On going through Ext.P1 scheme, we are of the view that it is
ineffective and inadequate for the smooth conduct of the management of the
temple. Therefore, the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board shall take
effective measures to frame a new scheme to ensure smooth and effective
administration of the temple by participation of all the major members of the
families giving due respect to the elder members of the families of the hereditary
trustees. The new scheme shall be more transparent, fair, equitable and should
be capable of safeguarding and protecting the interest of the deity and devotees.
WP(C) Nos. 12598 of 2020, 26462 of 2021, 23487 of 2021, and 13495
of 2022
70. WP(C) No. 12598 of 2020 is preferred by 29 employees of the
temple, challenging Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent State. Thereafter, some
of the petitioners had sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
43
to file a fresh writ petition. Names of those petitioners were deleted from the
party array and they preferred separate writ petitions alleging that there was
misjoinder of cause of action.
The following issues are involved in these four writ petitions:
(1) What is the scope of powers of a hereditary trustee for the appointment
of employees in the temple?
(2) Whether the Commissioner has the power to terminate the
employees/staff appointed by the trustee ?
(3) Whether the revisional authority exercising powers under Section 99 of
the Act could remit the case to the appellate authority ?
71. The issue Nos.1 and 2 are with respect to the powers of the trustee
for the appointment of staff in the temple and whether such power is absolute or
not.
72. Sri. K. Ramkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)
No. 13541 of 2013 and Sri. Anoop V. Nair, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C) No. 26462 of 2021 would submit that the appointment and
the termination of the employees/staff of the temple is the prerogative right of
the trustee and the Malabar Devaswom Board has no control in such matters.
The supervisory control of the Board does not extend to interfere in the
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
44
appointment or termination of the employees. The learned counsels pointed out
that the salary of the employees are paid by the trustee himself and therefore,
the Board cannot impose any restrictions in the appointment, regularisation or
termination of the employees of the temple. Therefore, it is submitted that
Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent revisional authority is illegal and liable to be
quashed.
73. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board would
submit that the power of trustee in making appointment and related matters is
subject to the limitations and restrictions in the statutory provisions and the rules
framed thereunder. Such powers of the trustee are not absolute or unqualified.
74. Before we proceed to decide the issues, it would be appropriate to
quote the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Sections 18, 20, 23, 25, 48, 100
of the Act reads as follows:
“18. Power of Commissioner to call for records and pass
orders
(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any
Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or any Area Committee, or of
any trustee not being the trustee of a math or of a specific
endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding
under this Act (not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit
or an appeal to a Court is provided by this Act), to satisfy himself
as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality
or propriety of any decision or order passed therein.
(2) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Deputy
or Assistant Commissioner, or by the trustee of any religious
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
45
institution other than one included in the list published under
Section 38, and it appears to the Commissioner that the decision
or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for
re-consideration, he may pass orders accordingly.
(3)(a) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Area
Committee or by the trustee of any religious institution included in
the list published under Section 38, the Commissioner may, if he
thinks fit, remit the matter together with his observations in
regard thereto, to the Committee or trustee for reconsideration of
the decision or order and report to the Commissioner within a
time to be specified by him in this behalf.
(b) On receipt of, and after considering, such report, it shall be
open to the Commissioner to modify, annul or reverse the decision
or order, or the decision or order as revised after such
reconsideration, as the case may be.
(c) If the report is not received by the Commissioner within the
time specified or such further time as may be granted by him the
Commissioner may modify, annul or reverse the decision or order
of the Area Committee or trustee, as the case may be.
(4) The Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any
party under sub-section (2) or clause (b) or clause (c) of
sub-section (3), without hearing him or giving him a reasonable
opportunity of being heard.
20. Powers and Duties of the Commissioner in
respect of religious Endowments. - Subject to the provisions
of this Act, the administration of all religious endowments shall be
subject to the general superintendence and control of the
Commissioner; and such superintendence and control shall include
the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to
ensure that such endowments are properly administered and that
their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they
were founded or exist.
23. Trustee bound to obey orders issued under Act.
- The trustee of a religious institution shall be bound to obey all
lawful orders issued under the provisions of this Act by the
Government [Board], the Commissioner, the Deputy
Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant
Commissioner.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
46
25. Preparation of register for all institutions. - (1)
For every religious institution, there shall be prepared and
maintained a register showing-
(a) the names of past and present trustees and particulars
as to the custom, if any, regarding succession to the office of
trustee;
(b) Particulars of the scheme of administration and of the
dittam or scale of expenditure;
(c) the names of all offices to which any salary,
emolument or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and
conditions of service in each case;
(d) the jewels, gold, silver, precious stones, vessels and
utensils and other movables belonging to the institution, with their
estimated value;
(e) particulars of all other endowments of the institution
and of all title-deeds and other documents;
(f) particulars of the idols and other images in or
connected with the institutions, whether intended for worship or
for being carried in processions;
(g) such other particulars as may be required by the
Commissioner.
(2) The register shall be prepared, signed and verified by
the trustee of the institution concerned or by his authorized agent
and submitted by him to the commissioner, directly in the case of
a math, through the Area Committee, in case the institution is
subject to the jurisdiction of an Area Committee, and through the
Assistant Commissioner in other cases, within three months from
the commencement of this Act or from the founding of the
institution, as the case may be, or within such further period as
may be allowed by the Commissioner, the Area Committee or the
Assistant Commissioner:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where a
register so signed and verified has been submitted to the Board
before the commencement of this Act.
(3) The Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, if
the register is submitted through it or him, may, after such inquiry
as it or he may consider necessary, recommend such alterations,
omissions or additions in the register as it or he may think fit.
(4) The Commissioner may, after receiving the register and
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
47
recommendations of the Area Committee or of the Assistant
Commissioner with respect thereto and making such further
inquiry as he may consider necessary direct the trustee to make
such alterations, omissions or additions in the register as the
Commissioner may deem fit.
(5) The trustee shall carry out the orders of the
Commissioner and then submit three copies of the register as
corrected to the Commissioner for approval.
(6) One copy of the register as approved by the
Commissioner shall be furnished to the trustee and one to the
Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner concerned, if any.
48. Appointment of office-holders and servants in
Religious Institutions. - (1) Vacancies, whether permanent or
temporary, amongst the office-holders or servants of a religious
institution shall be filled up by the trustee in cases where the
office or service is not hereditary.
(2) In cases where the office or service is hereditary, the
next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed.
(3) Where however there is a dispute respecting the right
of succession, or
Where such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately, or
Where the person entitled to succeed is a minor without a
guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute
respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian, or
Where the hereditary office holder or servant is suspended
from his office under section 49 sub section (1), the trustee may
appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the office or
perform the service until the disability of the office holder or
servant ceases or another person succeeds to the office or service
as the case may be.
Explanation. - In making any appointment under this sub
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
48
section the trustee shall have due regard to the claims of
members of the family, if any, entitled to the succession.
(4) Any person affected by an order of the trustee under
subsection (3) may, within one month from the date of the receipt
of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Deputy
Commissioner.
100. Power to make rules. - (1) The Government may
make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act and
not inconsistent therewith.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, they shall have power to make rules with
reference to the following matters:-
(a) all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to
be prescribed;
(b) the form and manner in which applications and appeals
should be submitted to the Government, the Commissioner, or a
Deputy or an Assistant Commissioner;
(c) the powers of the Government, the Commissioner, or a
Deputy or an Assistant Commissioner to hold inquiries, to summon
and examine witnesses and to compel the production of
documents;
(d) the inspection of documents and the fees to be levied
for such inspection;
(e) the fees to be levied for the issue and service of
processes and notices;
(f) the grant of certified copies and the fees to be levied
therefor;
(g) the budgets, reports, accounts, returns or other
information to be submitted by trustees;
(h) the convening of meetings of trustees and the quorum
for, and the conduct of business at, such meetings;
(i) the manner in which the opinions of trustees shall be
ascertained otherwise than at meetings;
(j) the proper collection of the income of, and the
incurring of expenditure by, religious institutions;
(k) the custody of the moneys of religious institutions,
their deposit in, and withdrawal from, banks, and the investment
of such moneys;
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
49
(l) the custody of jewels and other valuables and
documents or religious institutions;
(m) the manner in which and the period for which leases of
properties of religious institutions shall be made;
(n) the manner in which the accounts of religious
institutions shall be audited and published, the time and place of
audit and form and contents of the auditor's report;
(o) the method of calculating the income of a religious
institution for the purpose of levying contribution and the rate at
which it shall be levied;
(p) the security, if any, to be furnished by officers and
servants employed for the purposes of this, Act ;
(q) the preservation, maintenance, management and
improvement of the properties and buildings of religious
institutions;
(r) the inspection and supervision of the properties and
buildings of religious institutions, the reports to be submitted by
persons making such inspection and supervision and the fees
leviable for such inspection, supervision and report;
(s) the preservation of the images in temples;
(t) the grant of travelling and halting allowances to the
members of the Area Committees or to the trustees;
(u) the preparation and sanction of the estimates and
acceptance of tenders, in respect of public works and for supplies
in religious institutions;
(v)
(w)
(x) the qualifications, method of recruitment, pay, grant of
leave leave allowance and travelling allowance, personal conduct
and punishment of-
(i)
(ii) executive officers appointed for religious institutions
under any provision of this Act or in pursuance of any scheme
settled or deemed to be settled thereunder;
(y) the qualifications to be possessed by the officers and
servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious
institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary
servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of
all such officers and servants;
(z) the grant of pensions of gratuities to officers and
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
50
servants of the Board who retired before the commencement of
this Act; and
(aa) the grant of gratuities to the heirs of deceased
officers and servants of the Board including those who had retired
before the commencement of this Act.
(3) The Power to make rules under this section shall be
subject to the condition of previous publication.”
75. It would be apposite to extract the Rules framed under Section
100(2)(y) of the Act.
PART I
1. The rules in this Part shall apply to all officers and
servants of religious institutions except the officers and servants
constituting the establishment of the Tirumalai-Tirupathi
Devasthanams to whom the rules framed under Section 100 (2)
(x) (i) apply and executive officers appointed for religious
institutions under any provisions of the Act or in pursuance of the
scheme settled or deemed to be settled thereunder, to whom the
rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) apply.
2. In the rules--
(a) 'ulthurai servant' means and includes a servant whose
duties relate mainly to the performance, or rendering assistance in
the performance, of pooja, rituals and other services to the deity,
the recitation of Mantras, Vedas, Prabandas, Thevarams and
similar invocations, and the performance of duties connected with
such performance or recitation;
(b) 'outdoor servant' means and includes a servant other
than a ulthurai servant;
(c) 'officer' or 'servant' includes a person who holds an
office to which an inam, granted, confirmed or recognized by the
Government, is attached or is remunerated in kind or in cash and
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
51
who is not a whole time functionary;
(d) 'appointing authority' means the authority having
power to appoint an officer or servant.
3. Every officer and servant of a religious institution shall
profess the Hindu religion and shall cease to hold office when he
ceases to profess the Hindu religion.
4. (1) No person who is suffering from any contagious or
infectious disease either congenital or supervening and no person
who is suffering from any mental or physical infirmity which
renders him unfit for service, shall be appointed to, or succeed to
or hold any office in a religious institution. Any doubt or dispute as
to whether a person is qualified under this rule shall be decided by
the trustee by obtaining a certificate of physical fitness from the
nearest Civil Assistant Surgeon. Any person aggrieved by an order
of the trustee may file an appeal to the Commissioner within one
month of the date of receipt by him of the trustee's order.
(2) Except in the case of a hereditary officer or servant,
no person may be appointed to or hold any office unless he is not
less than eighteen and not more than sixty-five years of age.
(3) No person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
by a criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude or
bound over for keeping the peace or for good behaviour shall be
appointed to or hold any office.
(4) No person who has been declared or adjudicated as
an insolvent or who has applied to be so adjudicated or declared
shall be appointed to or hold any office.
5. (1) The appointing authority may, if it deems
necessary, require any non-hereditary office-holder or servant of
an institution to undergo a period of probation as specified in the
order of appointment which in no case shall exceed two years
within a continuous period of three years. Such probation may be
either in the said post or in any similar or higher post.
(2) If at the end of the prescribed period of probation, the
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
52
appointing authority does not consider the probationer suitable for
confirmation, the appointing authority shall discharge him from
service:
Provided that the appointing authority, may, in its
discretion instead of discharging the probationer, extend the
period of his probation by a period which shall in no case be
longer than one year from the date of the expiry of the prescribed
period of probation and if, at the end of such extended period, the
appointing authority does not consider the probationer suitable for
confirmation, he shall be discharged.
(3) If, at the end of the prescribed period or extended
period of probation the appointing authority considers the
probationer suitable for confirmation, an order declaring the
probationer to have satisfactorily completed his probation shall be
issued as soon as possible. On the issue of such an order, the
probationer shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his
probation on the date of the expiry of the prescribed period of
probation or as the case may be, the extended period of
probation.
6. Every 'ulthurai servant' whether hereditary or not,
whose duty is to perform poojas and recite Mantras, Vedas,
Prabandams, Thevarams and other invocations shall before
succeeding, or appointment, to an office obtain a certificate of
fitness for performing his office, from the head of an institution
imparting instructions in Agamas and ritualistic matters and
recognized by the Commissioner by general or special order or
from the head of a math recognized by the Commissioner by a
general or special order, or other person designated by the
Commissioner from time to time for the purpose.
7. A woman succeeding to the office of a hereditary
'ulthurai servant' or a hereditary 'ulthurai servant' who does not
possess or has not acquired the qualification required by Rule 6,
or who for any reason is unable to discharge her duties may,
subject to approval by the trustee, nominate in writing a duly
qualified person as deputy for such period as may be specified in
the instrument of nomination and such deputy may, on
recognition by the trustee of the religious institution, hold the
office subject to the rights and disabilities of the person who
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
53
nominates him:
Provided that in making nomination preference shall be
given to a member of the servant's family who is duly qualified
and willing to be nominated.
8. If a hereditary outdoor servant is unable to discharge
the duties attached to the office, personally, he or she may, with
the previous approval of the trustee, nominate a duly qualified
person as his or her deputy and such deputy may on recognition
by the trustee hold the office subject to the rights and disabilities
of the person who nominated him:
Provided that the trustee shall, when the hereditary
servant is not a female, not be bound to recognize a deputy for
more than one year and that such hereditary servant who is
absent for more than a year shall not be entitled to continue his
deputy or to draw his emoluments, but shall be liable for removal
from office for failure to perform his duty.
9. No person shall be appointed to the post of outdoor
servant to which the duties of maintenance and custody of
accounts and register collection of incomes and custody of cash or
other valuables are attached, unless he has passed the III Form or
the VIII Standard and no person shall be appointed to the post of
outdoor servant carrying a salary of Rs. 45 per month and above
unless he is qualified for entry into the public service, under the
notification for the time being in force relating to entry into public
service.
10. The pay and emoluments in cash and in kind of each
officer and servant shall be in accordance with a schedule of
establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the Area
Committee in the case of institutions under the jurisdiction of the
Committee and by the Commissioner in the case of other
institutions. The trustee shall not alter the schedule without the
previous permission of the Area Committee or the Commissioner,
as the case may be.”
76. Sri. Anoop V. Nair, the learned counsel, invited the attention of this
Court to the judgment in Parakkad Sree Bhagavathy Devaswom v.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
54
3
Malabar Devaswom Board and Others . In the said judgment, a coordinate
Bench of this Court observed that the power to supervise does not include the
power to appoint, and that the authorities under the Act have no power to make
such appointments.
77. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of a
coordinate Bench of this Court in WA No. 35/2021, wherein, it was observed that
the sole prerogative in making appointment to available vacancies in sanctioned
post will be vested with the temple trustee going by the mandate contained in
Section 48(1) of the Act. Moreover, the control of such officials and servants of
the temple is also vested with the trustees as per Section 49 of the Act.
78. The learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court in
paragraph 21 of A.C. Bhanunni (supra). In that judgment, this Court held that
hereditary trustees have the authority over administrative affairs including
appointment, suspension and termination of temple employees. It was further
observed that trustee of every religious institution is bound to administer its
affairs to apply its funds and properties in accordance with the terms of the
trustee, the usage of the institution and all lawful direction, which a competent
authority may issue in respect therefore and as carefully as a man ordinary
prudence would deal with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his own.
In paragraph 72 of the said judgment went on holding that the Commissioner
and other officers have mere supervisory powers which do not make the
hereditary trustee a subordinate of a Board.
4
79. In Malabar Devaswom Board v. Hareesh V. , this Court held
that the actual process of appointment to fill up the vacancies in relation to
3
2010 (4) KHC 573
4
2022 KHC OnLine 211
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
55
sanctioned posts will not require any prior approval of the Commissioner either
before such appointments or after the appointment.
80. In Parakkad Sree Bhagavathy Devaswom (supra), it was held
that the power to supervise does not include the power to appoint.
81. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to pass any
orders which are necessary to ensure the proper administration of the temple
and due appropriation of the income therefrom. It says about the power of the
Commissioner for control and general superintendence of the religious institution.
82. Section 23 of the Act enjoins that the trustee of a religious
institution shall be bound to obey the lawful orders of the top level officers of the
Board.
83. Section 25 makes it obligatory on the part of the trustee to
maintain certain registers including a register showing the salary, emoluments
etc., of the officers.
84. Section 48(1) empowers the trustee of a religious institution to fill
up the vacancies of the office holders or servants, whether permanent or
temporary.
85. Section 100 enables the Government to make necessary rules to
carry out the purposes of the Act.
86. Section 100(2)(y) says that Rules may be made for with respect to
the qualification, the conditions of service of the officers and the servants of a
religious institution.
87. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 100(2)(y), rules
were framed by the Government. Rule 10 provides that the pay and
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
56
emoluments of each servant shall be in accordance with a schedule of
establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the area committee or by
the Commissioner as the case may be. It further states that the trustee shall not
alter the schedule without the previous permission of the area committee or the
Commissioner. Rule 10 is a valuable safeguard to ensure the arbitrary and
excessive exercise of power by the trustee of a religious institution.
88. It is true that the trustee has the power to appoint a servant under
Section 48(1), however, Rule 10 mandates that the pay and emoluments of such
employees shall be in accordance with the schedule of establishment approved
by the area committee/the Commissioner.
89. On a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is crystal
clear that the powers of the trustee to appoint non-hereditary servants or officers
are unlimited and unfettered. It is true that the hereditary trustee is empowered
to make appointments for the post sanctioned by the Board after complying with
the due selection process. However, such powers are well within the control and
supervision of the area committee or the Commissioner as the case may be.
90. In view of Rule 10, a trustee can make appointments only for the
posts sanctioned and approved by the schedule of establishment by the
competent officer of the Board. If any appointment is made, over and beyond
the sanctioned posts, as the approved schedule of establishment, such
appointments can only be considered as illegal. An illegally appointed employee
cannot seek regularisation, salary and emoluments at par with the regular
employees.
91. It is true that the appointing authority under Section 48(1) is the
trustee of the religious institution. It is the settled proposition of law that only
the appointing authority can terminate an employee. But in view of Section 23
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
57
of the Act, a trustee of a religious institution is bound to obey the lawful orders
of the officers of the Board, such as the Deputy Commissioner, the Area
Committee or the Assistant Commissioner. In the instant case, as per the
approved schedule of establishment, there are only 73 sanctioned posts. The
learned counsel for the Board pointed out that 17 appointments were illegally
made without observing any formalities and 27 persons were engaged against
non-sanctioned posts. Pursuant to the orders of the 1st respondent, the
Commissioner had issued an order terminating 27 persons, who were appointed
in the non-sanctioned posts. The law laid down in A.C. Bhanunni, Parakkad
Sree Bhagavathi temple, Hareesh V. are not applicable to the facts of the
instant case.
92. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 12598/2020, challenged Ext.P6 order
passed by the State in exercise of revisional powers under Section 99 of the Act.
The principal challenge in this writ petition is that Ext.P6 order of the 1st
respondent therein is violative of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court and the revisional
authority ought not have relegated the matter to the Commissioner. It would be
useful to extract the operative portion of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated
05.11.2019 in WP(C) No. 17010 of 2014. The relevant paragraphs of Ext.P5
judgment reads as follows:
“10. Taking into consideration the materials provided in the
writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the 1st respondent
shall apply its mind on the issue. The 4th respondent Devaswom
is of a 'Mahakshethram'. Appointments to hereditary
posts/vacancies cannot be said to be illegal if those have been
made from among the candidates from the respective families
when vacancies existed. The 4th respondent would be justified in
making appointments which are extremely necessary and
indispensable, taking into account the ritual requirements of the
temple and the number of devotees visiting, if the appointments
are not otherwise irregular. Furthermore, it is evident from Ext.P4
that the Malabar Devaswom Board, in its meeting held on
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
58
07.05.2015, has passed a resolution to the effect that the
temporary appointments made in different temples coming under
the Malabar Devaswom Board up to 28.08.2014 have to be
approved, if necessary, by creation of fresh vacancies. In the light
of the facts and circumstances stated above, the 1st
respondent-Secretary to Government has to have a re-look in the
matter.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to consider Ext.P3 revision petition submitted by the
petitioners on merits, expeditiously, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to a representative of the petitioners as also respondents
2 to 4. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of
three months. The benefit of the interim order passed by this
Court on 04.07.2014 will enure to the benefit of the petitioners till
the 1st respondent passes final orders on Ext.P3.”
93. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, the Secretary Revenue
Devaswom Department has considered the revision petition submitted by the
employees of the temple after affording an opportunity of being heard.
94. The revisional authority after a careful consideration of materials
placed on record and after hearing the affected parties, has disposed of the
revision petition holding that the appointments made over and above the
sanctioned strength, ie., 73 posts, are illegal. It is made clear that if the
appointment is made to the sanctioned posts after complying with the
procedures, the Commissioner can take appropriate decisions in this regard.
95. On going through Ext.P5 judgment and Ext.P6 order of the 1st
respondent State, we do not find any illegality in the order. We are unable to
accept the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P6 order is passed violating the
judgment of this Court and relegated the matter to the Commissioner for taking
a decision.
96. Section 99 of the Act empowers the State Government to call for
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
59
and examine the records of the Board and its officers or the trustee in respect of
any proceedings in order to satisfy the legality, regularity or propriety of the
orders passed. The revisional authority can modify, annul, reverse or remit the
matter or reconsideration. The proviso to Section 99(1) states that before
passing an order under Sub Section 1 of Section 99, the State Government shall
afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. On going through
Section 99, it is crystal clear that the revisional authority has ample powers to
remit the matter back to the original authority for reconsideration.
97. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order, the Commissioner has passed Ext.P7
order terminating the services of 27 employees with effect from 19.06.2020. On
a careful consideration of the pleadings, materials placed on record, and the
submissions advanced by counsel before the Court, we are of the firm view that
the reliefs claimed in WP(C) No. 12598 of 2020 cannot be granted.
98. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 26462 of 2021 has
pointed out that the petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed against the retirement
vacancies arising out of Smt. Thankammu Amma and Chakki with effect from
01.11.2011 and 06.01.2012 respectively. The learned counsel submitted that
they were appointed to duly sanctioned and existing posts.
99. Likewise, it is pointed out that the 3rd petitioner in the above writ
petition was appointed to the post which arose consequent to the voluntary
retirement of her mother on 01.07.2008. The 4th petitioner was appointed on
compassionate grounds after her husband, who was working as an elephant
mahout, became medically unfit due to severe injuries sustained during the
course of employment.
100. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 23487 of 2021 and
WP(C) No. 13495 of 2020 have pointed out that the petitioners therein are
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
60
entitled for regularisation in service in view of Ext.P4 resolution of the Board to
regularise the temporary employees who were working under Malabar
Devaswom Board as on 28.02.2014.
101. On a careful consideration of the pleadings materials placed on
record and the submissions advanced in the Court, we deem it appropriate to
dispose of these writ petitions in the following manner:
(1) The WP(C) No. 13541 of 2013 is allowed. The order appointing Executive
Officer in Sree Thirumandhankunnu Bhagavathi Temple and the
consequential orders are hereby set aside and quashed.
(2) The Devaswom Board and its officers are directed to initiate emergent
steps to appoint hereditary trustee as per Ext.P1 scheme. The present
Executive Officer holding charge of the affairs of the temple shall continue
to hold the office till a new hereditary trustee is appointed as per Ext.P1
scheme. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within one month
from the date of this judgment.
(3) The Deputy Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board is directed to frame
a new scheme replacing Ext.P1 scheme to ensure proper administration of
the temple in accordance with Section 58(1) of the Act in consultation
with the hereditary trustee and the persons having interest and the area
committee having jurisdiction.
(4) The new scheme shall be framed after effective consultations and
meetings with the trustee and the members of the families of the
hereditary trustee. The new scheme shall contain provisions and
stipulations for the smooth, effective and proper administration of the
temple in a transparent and corruption-free manner.
(5) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within the outer limit of three
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
61
months from the date of this judgment.
(6) A draft of the new scheme shall be produced before the Devaswom Bench
of this Court by the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board for approval.
The new scheme shall be implemented only after getting approval from
this Court.
(7) WP(C) Nos. 12598 of 2020, 23487 of 2021, 13495 of 2022 are
dismissed.
(8) WP(C) No. 26462/2021 is disposed of with a direction to the
Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board to reconsider the matter afresh
and ascertain whether the petitioners therein were appointed in the
sanctioned posts and to pass appropriate orders.
(9) DBP No. 89 of 2017 is closed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Msp
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
62
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13541 OF 2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME DATED 4TH MAY 1966.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
8/12/2010 EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER IN
THE NAME OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21/5/2013 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
13.04.2013 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.05.2013 SENT
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE
PERINTHALMANNA CIVIL INSPECTOR PURPORTING TO
ASSUME CHARGE AS THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. J3/3129/2013/MDB DATED
01-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE ALONG WITH
A LETTER SIGNED BY SRI. DINESH, INSPECTOR,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 17-05-2013
ISSUED BY R1
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF RESIGNATION DT.
10-04-2017 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO R1
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE
MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 12.05.2023
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.A1-505/21/MDB(OA 11/18) DATED 28.10.2021
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18..07..2023
SENT BY SHRI SREEDHARA VARMA RAJA TO THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 06..08..2023
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
63
SENT BY SHRI SREEDHARA VARMA RAJA TO THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06..11..2021 SENT
BY SHRI SREEDHARA VARMA RAJA TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. TBD-605/2024 DATED
25..02..2025 SENT BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM TO
THE APPLICANT HEREIN
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. TBD-245/2023 DATED
14..07..2025 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO. TBD-245/2023
DATED 19..09..2025 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. TBD-2 -
855/2023(2) DATED 08..10..2025 SENT BY THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. TBD-2-937/2023
DATED 17..10..2025 BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF THE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER DATED
25-05-2013
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-04-2013
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-05-2013
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ALONG WITH
ENCLOSURES DATED 02-05-2013
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ADDRESS DATED
13-05-2013
EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-05-2013
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
64
EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-05-2013
EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT DATED
05-08-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE ADDL.3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT NO.
KSAMLP5-455/2015 DATED 19.12.2015 BY THE
LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R1(j) TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 09-08-2017 OF THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIRUR.
EXHIBIT R3(1) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED
18.09.2017
EXHIBIT R3(2) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED
15-11-2017.
EXHIBIT R3(3) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 17-11-2017
EXHIBIT R3(4) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11-09-2017
EXHIBIT R3(5) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11-09-2017
EXHIBIT R3(6) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11-09-2017
EXHIBIT R3(7) THE PHOTOCOPY OF NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN
MATRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 17-10-2017
EXHIBIT R3(8) THE PHOTOCOPY OF NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN
MATRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 20-10-2017 REGARDING
'MAHAMANGALYA POOJA'
EXHIBIT-R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT
NO.KSAMLP4-633/2018 DATED 02.07.2019 OF THE
LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT-R(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-07-2019
ISSUED BY SRI.K.C.JANARDHANAN RAJA, THE
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-08-2019
ISSUED BY SRI.K.C.JANARDHANAN RAJA, THE
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-09-2019
ISSUEDBY SRI.K.C.JANARDHANAN RAJA, THE
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
65
EXHIBIT-R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT DATED 25-07-2019 OF
THE HUNDIAL ASSORTMENT REGISTER (PAGES
154-155) OF SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI
DEVASWAM.
EXHIBIT-R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT DATED 29-08-2019 OF
THE HUNDIAL ASSORTMENT REGISTER (PAGES
169-170) OF SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI
DEVASWAM.
EXHIBIT R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT
DATED 01-01-1995 OF SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVTHI DEVASWOM
EXHIBIT R3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE YEAR 2005 OF SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVTHI DEVASWOM
EXHIBIT R3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27-06-2007 OF
THE INSPECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, HR& CE (ADMN)
DEPT REGARDING THE ILLEGAL PURCHASE OF SANDAL
WOOD.
EXHIBIT R3(j) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10-07-2007
SUBMITTED BY N.R.SAMBASHIVAN AND 2OTHERS TO
THE FOREST CONSERVATOR, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT R3(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2-416/08 ISSUED
BY FOREST CONSERVATOR, KOZHIKODE TO PV
RAVINDRANATH
EXHIBIT R3(l) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT NO.LFHRE(P)
7-509/2009 DATED 08-12-2009 OF THE SREE
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVTHI DEAVSWOM FOR THE
YEAR 2008
EXHIBIT R3(m) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
NO.J5-5840/2009/MDB DATED 05-09-2012ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT R3(n) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.J5-4709/2013(MDB)(KDIS) DATED 16-06-2014
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE TRUSTEE.
EXHIBIT R3(o) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TBD-1776/2013 DATED
30-06-2014 BY STOPPING PAYMENT OF SALARY TO
THE 41 EMPLOYEES
EXHIBIT R3(p) TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT NO.KSAMLP
4-419/2017 DATED 1-09-2017 FOR THE YEAR 2014
& 2015 (RELEVANT PAGES 1 TO 27 ONLY)
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
66
EXHIBIT R3(q) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.2175/2020/RD DATED
12-06-2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT R3(r) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J5-2317/2013/MDB
DATED 17-05-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(s) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J5-2317/2013/MDB
DATED 25-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(t) TRUE COPY OF THE TRUSTEE MINUTES DATED
01-02-2020
EXHIBIT R3(u) TRUE COPY OF THE TRUSTEE MINUTES DATED
30-12-2020
EXHIBIT R3(v) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-05-2013
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE TRUSTEE
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
67
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13495 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.06.2014
ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.,06.2014
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.J5/4700/2013
MDB (KDS).
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
30.06.2014 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 07.05.2015.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.11.2019 IN WPC NO.17010/2014 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(RT)
NO.2175/2020/RD DATED 12.06.2020 PASSED BY
THE REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO/.GO(RT)
NO.2175/2020/RD DATED 12.06.2020 WHICH WAS
COMMUNICATED VIDE LETTER DATED 19.06.2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2020
PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT (NO.TBD
434/2020).
Exhibit P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN WPC
NO.22681/2020.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-06-2025
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER NO.3
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
68
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12598 OF 2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DT.30.06.2014 ISSUED
BY THE MANAGER OF R4
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT.16.06.2014 ISSUED BY
R2
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION T.30.06.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R1
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
ON 07.05.2015 BY THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.05.11.2019 IN WP(C)
NO.17010/2014
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2175/2020/RD DT
12.06.2020 ISSUED BY R1
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.TBD 434/2020
DTD.19.06.2020 ISSUED BY R5
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 3-11-2024
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
1-8-2025
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
69
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23487 OF 2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TBD/-1776/2013
DATED 30.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 16.06.2014 WITH
TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7.5.2015 BY
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2019 IN
WRIT PETITION (C) 17010/2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(RT)
NO.2175/2020/RD DATED 12.06.2020 ISSUED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2020 IN
WRIT PETITION 12598/2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER NO.TBD
434/2020 DATED 19.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H6/857/2020/MDB
DATED 19.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.10.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.10.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2021 IN IA
8/2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.12598/2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
70
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26462 OF 2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME EVOLVED IN THE MATTER
OF SRI.THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE,
ANGADIPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2013 ISSUED
BY THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DEVASWOM APPOINTING THE 1ST
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND PETITIONERS TO THE TWO
RETIREMENT VACANCIES OF SWEEPER (ATTENDER
GRADE).
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2014 ISSUED
BY THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DEVASWOM, CONFIRMING THE 1ST AND
2ND PETITIONERS TO THEIR POSTS.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2008 ISSUED
BY THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DEVASWOM APPOINTING THE 2ND
PETITIONER TO THE VACANCY THAT AROSE IN
CLEANING SECTION (SWEEPER GRADE).
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2016 ISSUED
BY THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DEVASWOM, CONFIRMING THE 3RD
PETITIONER TO HER POST.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE HUSBAND OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.5.2012 ISSUED
BY THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DEVASWOM APPOINTING THE 4TH
PETITIONER TO THE VACANCY THAT AROSE IN
CLEANING SECTION (SWEEPER GRADE).
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2012 ISSUED
BY THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DEVASWOM, CONFIRMING THE 4TH
PETITIONER TO HER POST.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.6.2014
ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
71
DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
J5/4709/2013/M.D.B.(K.DIS.) DATED 16.6.2014.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.23149 OF 2009 AND WP(C) NO.34920 OF 2010
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 1.9.09.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REVISION PETITION
ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7.5.2015 BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2019
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)
NO.17010 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT)
NO.2175/2020/RD DATED 19.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT, REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION BEARING NO.H
857/2020 DATED 19.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.T.B.D.434/2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 19.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
2.7.2020 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PRESIDENT
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P18(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
2.7.2020 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PRESIDENT
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P18(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED PREFERRED BY THE
3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 29.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P18(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED PREFERRED BY THE
4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND
THE PRESIDENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD
DATED 29.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P18(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTED PREFERRED BY THE
2026:KER:36274
W.P(C).No.13541/2013 and connected cases
72
4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND
THE PRESIDENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD
DATED 30.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
25.6.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, ORDERING THE
RESPONDENTS TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO TILL THE
DATE OF NEXT HEARING.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2021 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2021 IN
WP(C) NO.12598 OF 2020.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H6/857/2020 DATED
19-06-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-06-2020
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19-06-2020
RECEIVED FROM THE ASSISTANT MANAGER OF THE
TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED ON THE
NOTICE BOARD OF THE ANGADIPURAM GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 19-06-2020.
EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPIES OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED
20-06-2020 (28 NO’S).
EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE WORKING ARRANGEMENTS DATED
19-06-2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20-06-2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.