SUNIL KUMAR Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the devotees of Lord Subrahmanya, the deity of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, a temple under the management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. Some of them are members of 'registered mandalam' for electing the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, under Sec. 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to constitute a Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, in accordance with Ext.P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, notified on 30/1/2011, forthwith; a declaration that the 'Koothambalam' of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, which is a historical monument in existence for the past 150 years cannot be demolished, renovated or altered without the approval or concurrence of the Temple Advisory Committee to be constituted under Sec. 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and that, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee as well as its members, namely, respondents 6 to 10, are not vested with any power to demolish, renovate or alter the Koothambalam of the temple; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to prevent the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee as well as its members, namely, respondents 6 to 10, from proceeding with the demolition, alteration or renovation of the Koothambalam of the temple, till the said work is approved by the Temple Advisory Committee; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith prevent collection of donations by the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee as well as its members, namely, respondents 6 to 10, from the devotees and general public in connection with the renovation or alteration of the Koothambalam of the temple; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Haripad, to consider and act on Ext.P5 representation dtd. 28/2/2022 submitted by the 1st petitioner and other devotees, in accordance with law, with notice to them, expeditiously.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is against the constitution of the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, after the expiry of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Sec. 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which is entrusted with the renovation of the Koothambalam. The term of the Temple Advisory Committee elected in March, 2017, expired on March, 2019. The term of the said Committee was extended by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner for a period of one year. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent Board granted extension for a further period of one year, which expired on March, 2021. Without constituting a new Temple Advisory Committee, the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner constituted the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee for renovation of the Koothambalam from among the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, which was in office continuously for a period of four years.

(3.) In the writ petition, it is alleged that, the 5th respondent Ad-hoc Committee has put up boards in temple premises, requesting the devotees to contribute generously for the renovation of the Koothambalam, as evident from Ext.P2(a) photograph. In violation of the provisions under Clause (18) of Ext.P1 Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees, respondents 5 to 10 are collecting money from the devotees, inside the temple, without issuing any receipts. The amounts collected from the devotees are noted in a notebook. No special circumstances exist in the temple to invoke the provisions under Clause (21) of Ext.P1 Rules, for constituting an Ad-hoc Committee, in the place of a Temple Advisory Committee under Sec. 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The procedure adopted by respondents 2 to 4, while constituting the Ad-hoc Committee with respondents 6 to 10 as its members, who were the members of the Temple Advisory Committee continuously for a period of four years, is arbitrary and illegal and the action of respondents 2 to 4 is tainted with malafides. In support of the said contentions, the petitioners would rely on Ext.P3(a) reply dtd. 19/11/2021 received under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. For constituting a Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad, the devotees submitted Ext.P4 representation dtd. 25/1/2022 before the 4th respondent Sub Group Officer. The said representation was followed by Ext.P5 representation dtd. 28/2/2022 before the 3 rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, with a request to proceed with the repair or renovation work of the Koothambalam only after the constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee.