P VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition is an Advocate practicing in the High Court. His grievance is that while discharging his duties as a Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and in the midst of a case, he was relieved of his duties on extraneous consideration. While making it clear that the petitioner does not want to continue in the panel of Advocates appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, he has filed this Writ Petition only to make sure that his removal from the panel and taking away the case from him was not on account of any want of professional integrity in him and such removal should not remain as a stigma on his reputation as a lawyer. Ext.P2 is the communication directing the petitioner to handover the file relating to Audit Report of Accounts for 1167 ME Sabarimala Festival pending before the High Court and Ext. P3 is the proceedings of the Travancore Devaswom Board informing the petitioner that he is relived of his duties as Standing Counsel of the Board with immediate effect. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 order and also sought for a declaration that Ext.P3 is punitive and amounts to imposition of punishment without affording an opportunity to show cause and is liable to be declared as bad in law.

(2.) In the course of the duties of the High Court under Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, it came to the notice of this Court that there was a practice prevalent in the Travancore Devaswom Board of giving advances to the Administrative Officer for future expenses mainly in connection with the Sabarimala Festival. The advances were given of several lakhs of rupees and were entered in a register called "advance register". For the purpose of audit, the question arose whether the amounts received as per entries in the advance register were really spent and how much remained with the concerned officer. It was noted that the advance register itself was missing and it was difficult to verify the same. This Court had ordered a high-level enquiry by the Inspector General of Police and he has filed a report to this Court, Subsequently, when the audit for the year 1167 ME came up for consideration this Court made enquiries about the stopping of the advance system. Since it was found that by the time the enquiry and audit was over the officer concerned would retire from service and it was difficult to recoup the amounts from him, this Court suggested to stop the advance system which was not prevalent in any other Devaswoms in the State like Cochin Devaswom Board and Guruvayoor Devaswom. The Travancore Devaswom Board took a decision to stop the advance system and filed an affidavit before this Court that the advance system will be stopped. Later, it appears that there was a re-thinking on the part of the Devaswom Board. According to the petitioner, when this Court enquired about stopping that practice he had suggested alternate methods. It was not liked by the higher-ups in the Board. According to the petitioner, the stopping of the advance system was apprehended to adversely affect the unlimited opportunities for self aggrandisement of the some of the higher ups in the Board. It is for that reason that the case which was handled by the petitioner was taken away from him. The petitioner alleges that the order is tainted with mala fides and amounts to casting a stigma on the petitioner,

(3.) When the Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board took notice and submitted that he would file a statement controverting the allegations in the Writ Petition. In fact, he had got instructions in the matter and he submitted that the reasons for the removal of the petitioner would be disclosed. In the counter affidavit filed, certain allegations are levelled against the petitioner. It is stated that the tenure of the Standing Counsel is not stated in the order of appointment and no Writ Petition is maintainable against termination of such service. It is also stated that the respondent is not liable to state reasons for changing the advocate. Since the petitioner has pleaded no other reasons, the reasons are disclosed in the counter-affidavit. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, each and every reason pointed out is effectively answered and it is shown that they were not the real reasons. At the time of arguments, the Standing Counsel for the respondents did not elaborate on the reasons for relieving the petitioner and only contended that no Writ Petition was maintainable. It is argued that since none of the petitioner's statutory right or other right is violated, it is unnecessary to consider the validity of the reasons put forward for relieving the petitioner of his duties as Standing Counsel.