JT.DIRECTOR Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter pertains to the special report submitted by the Joint Director, Local Fund Audit, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, Thiruvananthapuram as to the non-submission of accounts by the Sakthikulangara Sree Dharma Shastha Kara Devaswom Committee, Kollam . The crux of the report is in respect of the financial year 2010-11, particularly referring to the lapses on the part of the first respondent Committee in submitting the accounts to be audited by the statutory authority, despite the mandate under the relevant provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950.

(2.) The above Act was amended by incorporating Section 31A providing for constitution of Temple Advisory Committee for the temple administration by the Devaswom, so as to ensure participation of Hindu devotees in the affairs of the temple. The constitution of the Committee has been approved by the Board . Earlier, ie., before incorporation of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee was in vogue in most of the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Board had issued guidelines based on Sections 24, 31 and 35 of the Act and in conformity with the orders passed by this Court on 04.10.1996 in connection with the hearing of Audit Report of Travancore Devaswom Board for the year 1982- 83 and also the order dated 09.01.1992. The Devaswom Board had issued guidelines of a statutory nature on 14.09.2002 providing for election of the President and Secretary from the Samithy and the Administrative Officer or Sub Group Officer to function as Treasurer; a joint account should be opened in the name of the President, Secretary, Treasurer and the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner concerned in a Nationalised Bank/Post office Savings Bank; also stipulating that proper receipts and payments' account should be maintained and subjected to audit. It was in the above background that the accounts of the first respondent's Committee were called for, for scrutiny and audit; when it was noted that the functioning of the first respondent Committee was not in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Board and that there was violation of monitoring mechanism established by the Board. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the amendment of the Act in the year 2007 (incorporating Section 31A) and the order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA 153 of 2009 of this Court, the Devaswom Board had issued necessary guidelines on 30.11.2011 to cater to the requirements. Still, when the accounts were called for during the audit of the accounts of Sree Dharma Shasta Temple, Sakthikulangara, Kollam in March, 2012, it was pointed out by the first Respondent Committee that they were not amenable to such audit, as they were functioning based on the decisions of the District Court, Kollam in O.S.14/1079 and that of this Court dated 15.03.1985 in A.S. 431 of 1981. It was also pointed out that the respondent Kara Devaswom Committee used to submit an Audit Report before the District Court, Kollam regularly after the internal audit by Chartered Accountants, virtually claiming a special status for the Committee unlike the other Temple Advisory Committee.

(3.) The main reasons pointed out for such distinction are as given below: