Kerala High Court Directs Formulation Of New Scheme For Effective Administration Of Sree Thirumandhankunnu Bhagavathy Temple

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar remarked that the present scheme framed in 1966 is ineffective, and ordered that a new scheme be drafted and be placed before the Court for approval.

The Court held:

“On going through Ext.P1 scheme, we are of the view that it is ineffective and inadequate for the smooth conduct of the management of the temple. Therefore, the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board shall take effective measures to frame a new scheme to ensure smooth and effective administration of the temple by participation of all the major members of the families giving due respect to the elder members of the families of the hereditary trustees. The new scheme shall be more transparent, fair, equitable and should be capable of safeguarding and protecting the interest of the deity and devotees...
The new scheme shall be framed after effective consultations and meetings with the trustee and the members of the families of the hereditary trustee. The new scheme shall contain provisions and stipulations for the smooth, effective and proper administration of the temple in a transparent and corruption-free manner…A draft of the new scheme shall be produced before the Devaswom Bench of this Court by the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board for approval. The new scheme shall be implemented only after getting approval from this Court.”

The court said that this aforesaid exercise shall be completed within the outer limit of three months from the date of the High Court judgment.

The Court also set aside the Devaswom Board order appointing the Executive Officer of the temple for an indefinite period and made without giving notice or giving opportunity to the hereditary trustee of the temple. It, however, permitted the present Officer to hold charge till a new hereditary trustee is appointed by the Board as per the existing scheme framed in 1966.

The afore directions were passed in a batch of writ petitions and devaswom board petition (DBP) with respect to the administration of the temple located in Angadippuram, Malappuram. The temple is a Hindu religious institution falling under the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.

As per the 1966 scheme, the administration of the temple affairs is to be done by the family of the hereditary trustee, who is the senior-most male member of the 'Valluvanadu Swaroopam' comprising four families of the Aiyranazhi, Mankada, Kadanamanna and Aripra Kovilakams.

Details of the pleas

One of the pleas was filed by the hereditary trustee and his power-of-attorney holder challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer of the Malabar Devaswom Board. They contended that with the appointment, the administration of temple is divested from the hereditary trustee and the appointment is illegal and ultra vires.

The Devaswom's stand was that a power-of-attorney cannot be appointed to discharge the functions and the appointment of the Executive Officer under the Act was intended to protect the best interest of the temple.

Some of the writ petitions were preferred by the temple employees, who were appointed by the trustee, after stoppage of disbursal of salaries due to non-approval of their appointments by the Board. They have been working in the temple without salary and since the Board did not take any steps to regularize them, they approached the High Court.

In the plea by the temple employees, the Board's stand was that the petitioners were illegally appointed by the trustee and the appointment caused huge financial burden on the temple. It was contended that the appointments were made towards non-sanctioned posts and without following any fair and transparent selection procedure. The Board pointed out the mechanism to be adopted for creating posts.

One of the petitions were filed by terminated employees of the temple seeking their reinstatement. This plea was opposed since the appointment was contended to be illegal and causing financial burden on the temple.

The DBP was a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by several devotees alleging corruption in the temple.

Executive Officer appointed to meet exceptional situations, cannot displace hereditary trustee

Examining the 1966 scheme, the Court remarked that the power to appoint an Executive Officer is primarily vested with the trustee and this powers goes to the Board only when the trustee fails to do so.

The Court noted that though it is stated by the Devaswom that the Executive Officer was appointed as a 'stop-gap' arrangement, the appointment was for indefinite period. Further, the administration of the temple was conducted for 13 years by the said appointee and his successors.

“prolonged continuation of an Executive Officer effectively eclipses the rights of the hereditary trustee to administer the affairs of the temple in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and the governing statute. The power to appoint an Executive Officer is intended to meet exceptional situations and cannot be exercised in a manner that results in a permanent or indefinite displacement of the hereditary trustee,” the Court added.

Board's power to appoint Executive Officer is limited, appointment cannot be for indefinite period

With respect to the powers of the Board in appointing Executive Officer, the Court opined:

“the powers of the Board to appoint an Executive Officer as per the scheme is limited…If the Board is of the view that prevailing circumstances warrant the appointment of an Executive Officer, such appointment must necessarily be for a definite and specific period. This would ensure continuity in administration while safeguarding the rights conferred upon the hereditary trustee under the Scheme and the statute. The Board is, therefore, duty-bound to periodically review the circumstances that necessitated the appointment of the Executive Officer…Indefinite extensions, without periodic review and application of mind, would be inconsistent with the statutory framework and the scheme governing the administration of the temple.”

Appointments made by the trustee in non-sanctioned posts are illegal

The Court examined various provisions of the Act as well as the Rules made thereunder and several decisions. It then opined:

“It is true that the trustee has the power to appoint a servant under Section 48(1), however, Rule 10 mandates that the pay and emoluments of such employees shall be in accordance with the schedule of establishment approved by the area committee/the Commissioner. On a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is crystal clear that the powers of the trustee to appoint non-hereditary servants or officers are unlimited and unfettered. It is true that the hereditary trustee is empowered to make appointments for the post sanctioned by the Board after complying with the due selection process…If any appointment is made, over and beyond the sanctioned posts, as the approved schedule of establishment, such appointments can only be considered as illegal.”

The Court then refused to allow the plea of the appointees in the non-sanctioned posts seeking regularization. With respect to the persons who were appointed in the retirement vacancies and on compassionate grounds, a direction was passed to the Board to reconsider the matter afresh.

Thus, the Court disposed of the plea.

Case No: W.P(C). No.13541/2013 and connected cases

Case Title: M.C. Kunhunni Raja and Anr. v. The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 319

Counsel for the petitioners: K. Ramakumar (Sr.), S.M. Prasanth, Asha Babu, Aswini Sankar R.S., G. Renjith, T.H. Aravind, T. Ramprasad Unni, Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, A.V. Indira, K.S. Arun Kumar, Raji T. Bhaskar, Vijay Sankar V.H., Amrutha K.P., P.K. Babu, Anoop V. Nair, Ramesh Chand, Devi P., A.K. Ananda Krishnan

Counsel for the respondents: R. Lakshmi Narayan – Standing Counsel – Malabar Devaswom Board, R. Rajanie – SC – Malabar Devaswom Board, Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, S. Renjith, V. Krishna Menon, Parthasarathy B., P. Vijayakumar, K.G. Rajeesh