RAVEENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are Non Hereditary Trustees of Kadavathoor Sree Kuroolikkavu Bhagavathi Temple, Thalassery, seek to call for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P3 and to quash all further proceedings in furtherance thereto. The petitioners further seek to declare that the Lok Ayukta has no power or authority to interfere with the administration and conduct of temples controlled and administered under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951.

(2.) The petitioners state that they are appointed as Non Hereditary Trustees of Kadavathoor Sree Kuroolikkavu Bhagavathi Temple pursuant to a notification issued under the provisions of Sections 39 and 41 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951. According to the petitioners, the Area Committee conducted interview and decided to appoint the petitioners. The petitioners state that the 3rd respondent, who was an applicant to the post of Non Hereditary Trustee, filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Lok Ayukta seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner not to appoint any respondent as new Trustee Board members and to restrain other respondents from forming annual festival committee and collecting amounts from the devotees and conducting festivals, without the consent of the Trustee Board. On the said complaint, the Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P2 interim order directing the officials concerned/respondents in the complaint not to collect donations for conducting 'Thira Mahotsavam' or any other festival in the temple unless it is against proper receipts issued by the Malabar Devaswom Board. The Lok Ayukta further ordered that formation of a new Trustee Board for the temple will be subject to further orders to be passed by the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta also observed that formation of annual festival committee violating the Circular referred to in Ext.P2 order, will be at the risk of the members of the Committee.

(3.) The petitioners contend that the said Ext.P2 order passed by the Lok Ayukta is beyond the powers of the Lok Ayukta. The complaint of the 3rd respondent is not a 'grievance' as defined under Sec. 2(h) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. It is the case of the petitioners that Sec. 8 of the Act, 1999 excludes the actions challenged, from the purview of the Act. If the complainant before the Lok Ayukta is aggrieved by any action of the Area Committee, a revision petition to the Government under Sec. 99 of the HR and CE Act is the proper remedy. In view of the statutory remedy, Ext.P3 complaint is not maintainable before the Lok Ayukta. Ext.P3 does not contain any allegation of maladministration and for this reason also, the complaint is not maintainable. Violation of the provisions contained in the Circular referred to in Ext.P2 order does not fall within the ambit of the powers of the Lok Ayukta, contend the petitioners.