JAYAKRISHNAN Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P4 order by which the third respondent removed the petitioner from the Advisory Committee of Neyyattinkara Sree Krishna Swami Temple, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was the Secretary of the Advisory Committee constituted by the Travancore Devaswom Board ('the Board' for short) for Neyyattinkara Sree Krishna Swami Temple. During July, 2014, the petitioner was issued Ext.P1 notice by the third respondent by which he was directed to show cause why he shall not be removed from the Advisory Committee of the temple. In Ext.P1 notice, it was alleged that the petitioner had acted against the interests of the Board by filing a case before this Court, challenging the decision of the Board to fix a grill enclosing the 'nadapanthal' of the temple. It was also alleged in Ext.P1 notice that on the festival day, the petitioner deliberately caused delay in returning the deity of the temple after the procession. The petitioner sent Ext.P2 reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice stating that the procession of the deity on the festival day was not under his control and the delay in the return of the deity to the temple was on account of the time taken for the performance of rituals in the course of the procession. It was also stated by him in Ext.P2 reply that the decision taken by the Board to fix a grill to enclose the nadapanthal of the temple was a decision taken against the interests of the devotees and therefore, he cannot be found fault with for having challenged the same before this Court. In Ext.P2, the petitioner had prayed for an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the stand taken by him and an opportunity for hearing before a final decision is taken in the matter. According to the petitioner, without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without affording him an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the stand taken by him in the reply, he was removed from the Advisory Committee by the third respondent as per Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 order, it is stated that on the festival day, the petitioner delayed the return of the deity to the temple after the procession and that he had acted against the interests of the Board while challenging the decision of the Board to fix a grill enclosing the nadapanthal of the temple, before this Court.

(3.) As noticed above, as far as the finding in Ext.P4 order that the petitioner delayed the return of the deity to the temple after the procession, the contention of the petitioner is that in the course of the procession, various rituals would take place at the instance of the devotees and the delay had occurred on account of the delay in the performance of the said rituals. It was also contended by the petitioner in that context that neither the petitioner nor other members of the Advisory Committee could avert the delay in completing the procession. As far as the case instituted by the petitioner before this Court, as noticed above, the contention of the petitioner is that the decision of the Board, which was challenged by him before this Court was a decision taken by the Board against the interests of the devotees of the temple and therefore, the same cannot be the basis of a disciplinary proceeding against him.