IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 189 of 2010()
1. APPUKUTTAN ACHARI,NADAYIL VADAKKATHIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREE MULAMKADAKAM DEVI TEMPLE
... Respondent
2. DR.MOHANRAJ,PRESIDENT,
3. K.K.BABU,MEMBER,
4. P.MADHAVAN,MEMBER,
5. K.SIVADASAN,MEMBER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :10/11/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
----------------------
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the petitioner in I.A.No.1314/2009 in
O.S.No.97 of 1099 M.E on the file of the I Additional District
Court, Kollam. The appeal is directed against the order dated
14.6.2010 in the said I.A. The appeal is limited against the order
to the extent it rejects the prayer sought for to remove
respondents 2 to 5 and entrust the entire administration of the
temple trust to the official receiver till a new committee assumes
charge.
2. The matter relates to administration of Sree
Mulankadakam Devi Temple. The procedure for the conduct of
the election to the office bearers of the temple trust is stipulated
in Ext.P1 scheme. On an earlier occasion the Secretary of the
Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha, Kollam Taluk Union
preferred W.P.(C).No.25195 of 2007 complaining about the
conduct of the election held on 1.10.2006. According to the
petitioner, in the said writ petition the election held on 1.10.2006
was not in accordance with the election procedure adopted in
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
::2::
Ext.P1 scheme, which was formulated by the District Court for
the administration of the said temple. The grievance was that
there was no proper publication of the voters’ list, that the voters’
list does not contain the names of all the members, that the
commissioner prepared a voters’ list on the basis of the names
given by the then Bharana Samithy, that the election was
conducted without verification of the personal identification of the
voters, that there were large number of fake voters, that the
procedure stipulated in Ext.P1 scheme are flouted by the
commissioner, that proper publication was not done etc. The
petitioner therein filed I.A.No.1414/2006 on 6.10.2006
challenging the election to the Sree Mulankadakam Devi Temple
Trust and sought to cancel the same.
3. The election was conducted on 1.10.2006. The period
of managing committee is three years and by 30.9.2009 the
period expired. This Court heard the writ petition on 18.3.2009.
Finding that the period of the existing managing committee is
about to expire, this Court observed that what remains is the
administration for a period of few months and that in such
circumstances, this Court is not examining the legality of the
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
::3::
order passed by the court below with regard to the points raised
by the petitioners in the writ petition. This Court also observed
that the approach made by the court below is wrong in passing
the impugned order. This Court did not interfere with the order
under challenge in the writ petition finding since the period of the
present committee will be over on 30.9.2009 and therefore
observed that no purpose will be served by remanding the matter
to pass orders afresh.
4. The appellant herein claiming to be a beneficiary filed
I.A.No.1314 of 2009 praying to appoint a receiver to take charge
of the administration and to remove respondents 2 to 5 from the
office of the administrative committee of Sree Mulankadakam
Devi Temple Trust and to entrust the administration of the
Temple Trust to the receiver till a newly elected committee
assumes charge in the office. The court observed that even
though the respondents have violated certain provisions in the
scheme, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entrust the
entire administration with the receiver. The court held that at
this stage, the court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the
petitioner. The court below further ordered that the present
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
::4::
committee shall function under the supervision of the official
receiver with regard to the maintenance of accounts as envisaged
under clause 24 of the scheme, that the account maintained by
the committee as per clause 24 shall be submitted before the
receiver on the next day for verification, that the offering boxes
shall be kept under lock and key of the receiver and that the
receiver has to affix his seal on the lock and produce the key
before the court.
5. This Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.25195/2007 by
judgment dated 18.3.2009 without deciding the issues raised in
the writ petition solely for the reason that the period of the
managing committee is about to expire. This Court also in the
said judgment observed that the approach of the court below in
arriving at a decision in its order dated 18.1.2007 in I.A.No.1414
of 2006 is not satisfactory. This Court did not go into the
questions under the hope that the election will be conducted
within the expiry of the period of the committee. The period of
the existing committee expired on 30.9.2009. Going by the
relevant provisions of the bye law the existing committee shall
initiate proceedings to conduct the election before the expiry of
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
::5::
the committee. Finding that the present committee is continuing
in the office without conducting the election at the appropriate
time the present I.A. was moved by one of the beneficiaries. The
court below considered the I.A on merits. But, at the same time
the court refused to pass appropriate orders finding that the term
of the committee is about to expire. What is expected in such
situation is the conduct of the election at appropriate time.
Election should have been held at the appropriate time and the
new committee should have been assumed charge immediately
on the expiry of the existing committee. Instead, for reasons not
known to this Court, the conduct of the election is being dragged
indefinitely. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent
that the returning officer was appointed to conduct the election
by the court below. The order dated 15.1.2010 to appoint a
returning officer itself is a belated action. It is submitted by the
counsel for the respondent that the returning officer called for the
voters list on 22.1.2010 and he has submitted the draft voters
list on 30.7.2010. It is also submitted that the final voters list
was submitted on 9.10.2010 for approval of the court. The list is
pending for approval. Learned counsel for the appellant
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
::6::
submitted that neither the draft voters list nor the final voters list
was served on the appellant.
6. In the circumstances, this Court direct the court below
to approve the voters list and pass orders to conduct the election
at the earliest date. The election shall be conducted, at any rate,
not beyond four months from today. The approval of the voters
list shall be done after giving opportunity to the appellant to file
objections. The approval shall be done after considering his
objections and objections if any preferred by similarly situated
persons and after hearing them. The court shall see that copies
of the draft voters list and final voters list shall be served on the
appellant. The court shall call for objections to the voters list
from persons interested by publication in the newspapers having
circulation in Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram Taluks.
Publication shall be ordered at the next posting date.
7. The court below did not go into merits of the
contentions raised by the petitioner for the reason that election
will be conducted and the newly elected committee will take
charge shortly. For the very same reason this Court also did not
go into the contentions raised in the appeal. In the interest of
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010
::7::
justice, the only course open to the court is to expedite the
conduct of the election. It is ordered that the existing committee
shall function under the supervision of the official receiver not
only with regard to the maintenance of accounts as per clause 24
of the scheme as ordered by the I Additional District Court,
Kollam in the order dated 19.3.2010 in I.A.No.318 of 2010 but
the official receiver shall also supervise the other regular sources
of income of the temple and the income received during festival
days. The account maintained by the committee with regard to
other sources of income received by the temple by way of
donations, vazhipadu receipts, rent etc. shall be submitted before
the receiver for verification weekly (every Saturday). In that
event the receiver shall submit weekly report to the court
regarding the income received from the above mentioned
sources.
With the above said directions the appeal is disposed of.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
bkn/-