PARAKKAD SREE BHAGVATHI DEVASWOM Vs. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter relates to the administration of the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom at Kavassery in Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. It cannot be disputed that the said Devaswom is an autonomous body administered in terms of a scheme framed by the District Court and the control of Malabar Devaswom Board over it, in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, is only supervisory. One T. P. Murukan was the Manager of the aforesaid Devaswom. When he attained the age of superannuation, he did not hand over charge to any person but continued to hold office. Ultimately, the Assistant Commissioner in the HR & CE (Administration) Department issued Ext. P2 on 20/11/2007, acting on a letter of the Commissioner and also the Devaswom Manager's application for annual increment, ordering that Sri.Murukan shall forthwith surrender charge and custody of all affairs and movable and immovable properties of the temple and such charge will be temporarily taken by Sri. V. Ramanathan, who was then the executive officer of the Sree Keralapuram Viswanathaswami Devaswom, yet another autonomous Devaswom, now under the control of the MDB.

(2.) Thereafter, the management of the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom proceeded to make appointment of a Manager as against the vacancy that arose on the superannuation of Sri.Murukan. Their request for permission to do so was to be considered by the competent authority. On allegation that such direction was being delayed, this Court directed consideration. The impugned Ext. P11 has been issued by the Devaswom Commissioner, refusing permission, on the premise that Sri. Ramanathan is a competent officer and that he is well versed in managing temples and his management can continue for the Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom.

(3.) When Ext. P11 decision is impugned, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit standing by the impugned decision and proceeding to say that the ultimate consideration ought to be the affairs of the temple and to that extent, the supervisory jurisdiction of the respondents in terms of the Act justifies the impugned order.