'Huge Loss Of Deity's Properties': Kerala High Court Orders Enquiry Into Alleged Mismanagement At Manakkattu Devi Temple In Pallipad

The Kerala High Court recently directed the Devaswom Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the Sree Devi Bhuvaneswari of Manakkattu Devi Temple, Pallipad, and to take the appropriate follow-up action. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar was considering a writ petition that had been filed by certain devotees of the Temple seeking a mandamus to be issued to the Travancore Devaswom Board (1st respondent herein) to assume the management of the said Temple under the provisions of Section 37 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and also for conducting an enquiry into the mismanagement of the affairs of the Temple under Section 38 of the Act. "As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondents No.4 (the Deity) and 5 (the Bharana Samithy) only if two mandatory conditions, namely, there is mismanagement and the same is proved, the 1st respondent get jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. For deciding that, the 1st respondent should conduct the enquiry which the Board has already ordered through its officers, and reach a logical conclusion", it observed while allowing the petition.The petitioners in this case had averred that the Temple had been in the list of grant-in-aid Temples administered by the then Rulers of Travancore and ought to have thus been included in the list of incorporated Devaswoms in Annexure-I of the Act, but had been omitted accidentally. The petitioners averred that while the Temple was being administered by the Devaswom Bharana Samithy, there had occurred repeated instances of mismanagement in the affairs of the Temple. They pointed out that the assets of the Temple including Thiruvabharanam, were misappropriated by the persons at the helm of the affairs of the Temple. A crime had also been registered against the office bearers of the Bharana Samithy. Pursuant to demands for assumption of the Temple by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner (3rd respondent herein) tried to conduct an enquiry but the authorities of the Temple administration did not provide accounts and records for verification. The 1st respondent also did not take any steps in this regard, and it is in this light the writ petition had been filed. The petitioners contended that the the 1st respondent was obliged to invoke Section 37 of the Act and take over the Temple since firstly, the Temple in question is a grant-in-aid temple and hence, and incorporated Devaswom, which had been omitted from the Annexure to the Act only due to an accidental slip; secondly, that since the Bharana Samithi comprising representatives of four NSS Karayogams administers the Temple, it is a Hindu Religious Endowment under Section 3(c) of the Act, and lastly, due to the overwhelming materials evidencing the mismanagement of Temple administration. The petitioners pointed out that the immovable property belonging to the Temple was also lost due to the recalcitrant attitude of the Temple administration.The Devaswom Board on its part, submitted that following the allegations of misappropriation and the requests from third parties for assumption of the Temple, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner was directed to conduct an enquiry. It was based on the enquiry reports that the decision not to take over the Temple was taken by the Board. On behalf of the Bharana Samithy, it was submitted that the misappropriation had been committed by the President and Secretary of the Bharana Samithy in their individual capacities. It was pointed out that action had been taken immediately on knowing the fact, and they were also removed from the posts. They thus contended that since there had not occurred any mismanagement on the part of the Bharana Samithy, the provisions of Section 37 of the Act could not have any application. The Court at the very outset, perused the Travancore Devaswom Board Manual, 1936, and discerned that while the Temple had been included in the list of grant-in-aid Devaswoms, it was however not included in Schedule-I to the Act which enlists the incorporated Devaswoms. It was therefore of the opinion that the fact that it was a grant-in-aid Devaswom prior to the enactment of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, did not have any relevance to the writ petition. The Court in this case, embarked on ascertaining as to whether the Temple in question is a Hindu Religious Endowment. It perused Section 2(b) of the Act, and ascertained that, "Every Hindu Temple where members of the Hindu community or any section thereof have right for worship is therefore a Hindu Religious Endowment. The only exception is religious institutions under the sole management of a single family. The proviso envisages that a religious institution managed by a fragmented family also is an exception". The Court found that in this case, the temple is a Hindu...

'Huge Loss Of Deity's Properties': Kerala High Court Orders Enquiry Into Alleged Mismanagement At Manakkattu Devi Temple In Pallipad

Navya Benny

Tags