K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner states that he is an ardent devotee of Sree Krishna Swami Temple, Neyyattinkara (for the sake of brevity, ‘the temple’). The petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P23, P24 and P25, whereby respondents 6 to 12 have been re-inducted into the voters’ list of the Temple Advisory Committee.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondents 6 to 12 are the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee, for the period 2016–2018. They were removed from the registered voter mandalam in 2022 on the ground that they had filed litigations against the Travancore Devaswom Board. Subsequently, respondents 6 and 7 were illegally inducted into the registered voter mandalam and elected as the President and Vice-President of the Temple Advisory Committee.

4. The petitioner states that he has attempted to ensure that the affairs of the temple are not detrimentally affected by the arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal decisions taken by the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee. In the course of such attempts, the petitioner was constrained to submit various complaints before the concerned authorities, highlighting the corruption and illegal activities committed by the former Temple Advisory Committee.

5. The Thantri of the Temple addressed a letter dated 21.09.2016 to the 4th respondent pointing out that the Namaskara Mandapam of the temple was in a dilapidated condition and requesting that it be renovated expeditiously in accordance with the glory and rituals of the temple. Ext. P1 is the letter issued by Thantri. It was decided in the meeting held on 14.06.2017 that teak wood, for renovating the Namaskara Mandapam of the temple, would be purchased from the Forest Department. Ext. P2 dated 14.06.2017 is the minutes of the meeting of the Temple Advisory Committee.

6. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, issued Ext. P3 order vide ROC No. 4240/17/NS-1 dated 25.09.2017, granting sanction to withdraw amounts from the joint account of the Committee for the completion of the temple works in a phased manner, after obtaining an estimate from the Assistant Engineer and final cheque shall be issued only after obtaining a completion certificate from the 4th respondent.

7. Subsequently, the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board issued Ext. P4 letter dated 23.12.2017 to the Devaswom Chief Engineer stating that the renovation of the Namaskara Mandapam could be carried out on the condition that the entire expenses would be borne by the Temple Advisory Committee, under the supervision of the officials of the Board and in accordance with the rituals of the temple.

8. It is further contended that as the tenure of the Temple Advisory Committee was to expire on 08.03.2018. The President and Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee submitted a request before the Devaswom Commissioner to extend the tenure of the Committee for a period of one year, under the pretext of completing certain construction works. However, the Devaswom Commissioner rejected the request, and the tenure was extended only until the completion of the annual festival on 23.03.2018.

9. The Assistant Engineer, Neyyattinkara issued Ext. P5 letter dated 22.02.2018 to the 4th respondent, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyattinkara, informing that the work would commence on 27.02.2018 and that, for carrying out the renovation, 130 cubic feet of Anjili wood was required at an approximate cost of ₹2,60,000/-. Thereafter, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyattinkara issued Ext. P6 letter dated 26.02.2018, to the Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Neyyattinkara, pointing out that the tenure of the present Temple Advisory Committee was about to expire and the proposed renovation works could be carried out by the new Temple Advisory Committee.

10. A complaint dated 08.03.2018 was preferred before the 4th respondent, contending that for the renovation of the Namaskara Mandapam, the Committee had decided that only teak wood purchased from the Forest Department would be used, which was recorded in the minutes. However, the former Committee purchased Anjili wood, instead of teak wood. The petitioner alleges that the purpose of this is for their own interest, to obtain a commission, and to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee, since the renovation works had been commenced. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the relief of a comprehensive investigation to be conducted and appropriate action may be initiated against the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee.

11. The Vigilance Officer (Superintendent of Police), Vigilance and Security, Travancore Devaswom Board, conducted an enquiry in the matter and submitted Ext. P17 report dated 30.06.2020, recommending that the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, including respondents 6 and 7, who were illegally elected as the President and Vice-President of the new Temple Advisory Committee, be blacklisted. The report states that there were procedural lapses in the purchase of Anjili wood and thereby caused loss to the Board.

12. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 09.09.2020 was issued to the petitioner and all other members of the Temple Advisory Committee seeking an explanation regarding the discrepancies in the purchase of wood. Ext. P18 is the explanation dated 05.11.2020 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext. P19 circular dated 02.09.2022 issued by the Devaswom Commissioner stipulates that the persons who have filed litigation against the Board and those who have trespassed into the properties of the Board shall be removed from the registered voters’ mandalam of the Committee of the respective temples. Ext. P20 is a letter dated 07.11.2022, issued by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the petitioner, Sri. Vinod S.R. was retained in the registered Mandalam and respondents 6 to 12 were excluded from the registered Mandalam of voters.

13. Aggrieved by the same, the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee preferred W.P.(C) No.25720 of 2021 to quash Ext.P17 enquiry report and W.P.(C) 35870 OF 2022 to quash the Circular dated 02.09.2022 and Order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 07.11.2022. The petitioner herein has also preferred W.P.(C) No. 9241 of 2021 to expedite the procedures of vigilance enquiry.

14. This Court by judgment dated 22.02.2023 has disposed of all three Writ Petitions by a common judgment (Ex.P22). Pursuant to Ext.P22 judgment, the members of the Temple Advisory Committee who were disqualified as per Exts. P19 and P20 shall be included in the voters’ list of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Neyyattinkara. Ext. P24 is the list of the Temple Advisory Committee members of Sree Krishna Swami Temple, Neyyattinkara, whereby respondents 6 and 7 were selected as the President and Vice-President of the Committee, respectively. Thereafter, the Board granted recognition to the new Temple Advisory Committee. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P23 letter dated 22.01.2024 directing the 4th respondent, Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to reinstate the members who were excluded from the registered mandalam of voters. Thereafter, petitioner further submitted Ext.P26 representation dated 25.01.2024, pointing out that Exts. P23 to P25 were issued in violation of Ext.P22 Judgment rendered by this Court.

15. It is in these assertions, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

                  “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Exts. P23, P24, P25 and P32, to the extent it relates to respondents 6 to 12 and quash the same.”

16. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext. P26, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C)No. 5786 of 2024.

17. The respondents 1 to 5 have placed on record a counter-affidavit as directed by this Court. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that Clause (3) of the Bye-law deals with the membership.

18. The election to the Temple Advisory Committee is to be done from among the members of ‘Registered Madalam’. On the basis of the letter issued by the Thranthri, it was decided to renovate the dilapidated Namaskara Mandapam of the temple with teak wood. It is stated in the counter that an estimate was prepared by the Assistant Engineer concerned for renovation with teak wood. However, the former Temple Advisory Committee proceeded to purchase Anjili wood instead of teak and withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the purchase of Anjili wood.

19. Further, based on a complaint received by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board, an enquiry was conducted and a report dated 04.01.2023 was submitted, recommending blacklisting of the then members of the Temple Advisory Committee.

20. On 04.01.2023, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner forwarded a report to the Devaswom Commissioner. The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner stated that the former members of the Temple Advisory Committee had submitted a representation before him, wherein it is stated that they purchased Anjili wood after getting a written opinion of the Thanthri of the temple and the Board has not suffered any loss due to the purchase of Anjili wood. In their representation, they stated that in view of Ext.P22 judgment, their disqualification has expired and they are liable to be included in the ‘registered mandalam of voters’ for the election to the new Temple Advisory Committee.

21. The Devaswom Commissioner, after considering the report, has issued a communication dated 22.01.2024 authorising the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Neyyattinkara to include the name of former members of Temple Advisory Committee, viz., T. Sreekumaran Nair, D. Anil Kumar, D. Krishnan Kutty Nair, K. Ratheesh Kumar, K. Rajan, V. Satheesh and P. Sobha Rani in the registered mandalam

22. It is further stated in the counter that, based on the Vigilance Enquiry Report, show cause notices were issued to the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee. Furthermore, directions were issued to the Assistant Commissioner to conduct an auction of the Anjili wood kept in the temple.

23. The Chief Engineer for the Board has conducted a survey and valued the Anjili wood kept in the temple at Rs. 3,10,644/-. The Board has granted approval to the said survey report for the auction of the Anjili wood kept in the temple premises. Despite repeated auctions by reducing the base price, nobody came forward to auction the Anjili wood and the same is still retained in the temple premises.

24. Respondents 6 and 7 have placed on record a detailed counter-affidavit, contending that they have never acted against the interests of the temple. They submit that they acted in accordance with the written advice of the Thanthri, Sri Saji Namboothiripad, to the effect that the Namaskara Mandapam of the temple could be renovated using Anjili wood. They have also produced Ext. R6(e), a letter issued by the Thanthri of the temple, wherein it is suggested that Anjili wood could be used for the renovation of the Namaskara Mandapam.

25. It is further contended that as per Ext. R6(f) communication issued by the Assistant Engineer to the 4th respondent that 130 cubic feet of Anjili wood is required for the renovation of Namaskara Mandapam and its approximate cost would be Rs. 2,60,000/-. A meeting of the Temple Advisory Committee was held on 04.03.2018 and resolved to purchase Anjili wood for the renovation. The amount required for the purchase was withdrawn by the Sub Group Officer, who is the Treasurer of the Temple Advisory Committee. It is further stated in the counter that Anjili wood was purchased from Dhanaya Associates and Timbers, Kuruppamthara, Kottayam for Rs. 3,52,173/- on 05.03.2018.

26. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that respondents 6 and 7, along with other members of the former Temple Advisory Committee who were excluded from the registered Mandalam, submitted Ext. R6(j) representation dated 20.12.2023 seeking their inclusion in the registered Mandalam. They denied the averment that Exts. P23 to P25 were issued in violation of Ext.P22 judgment of this Court. In Ext.P22 judgment, there is no direction interdicting the inclusion of the respondents in TAC. It is further contended that the respondents 6 and 7 have an unblemished record in their capacity as members of the Temple Advisory Committee.

27. The respondents 8 to 12 have also filed their counter-statement in more or less similar contentions.

28. Sri. Ajit G. Anjarlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the Board in Ext. P32 proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. It is pointed out that the Board has sustained a huge loss due to the decision of the former Temple Advisory Committee to purchase an excess quantity of Anjili wood, which was kept without any use.

29. The decision of the Board not to accept the Vigilance Report recommending the blacklisting of respondents 6 to 12 is perverse and illegal. It is contended that Anjili wood is an ‘Asura’ wood and, therefore, cannot be used for the construction or renovation of the Namaskara Mandapam, which is in close proximity to the deity. The purchase of Anjili wood in haste by respondents 6 to 12, on the verge of the expiry of their tenure, was solely for the purpose of securing an extension of their tenure.

30. Sri. Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, would submit that Ext. 32 proceedings are perfectly legal and valid. The Board, after a detailed consideration of Ext.P17 Vigilance Enquiry Report, has decided not to blacklist respondents 6 to 12.

31. Sri. George Varghese, the learned counsel for 6 and 7, would submit that the Temple Advisory Committee had taken a decision to purchase Anjili wood, after obtaining written permission (Ext. R6(e)) from the Thanthri. The learned counsel submitted that the entire premise of the writ petition is based on a fundamental legal fallacy that the findings in a vigilance report are final and binding upon the Board. The learned counsel further submitted that the Vigilance Report is purely recommendatory and it is the prerogative of the competent authority (the Board) to apply its independent mind to the report, consider the explanation offered, and take a final reasoned decision.

32. The Board has considered various aspects in the matter and issued Ext.P32 proceedings. The learned counsel pointed out that this Court is not expected to sit in appeal on a decision taken by the Board not to accept the report of the Vigilance Officer.

33. Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 12, had also justified and supported Ext. P32 proceedings of the Board and submitted that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The learned counsel submitted that the Writ Petition is filed with malafides.

34. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Ajit G. Anjarlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, Sri. George Varghese, Sri. V. Ramkumar Nambiar and Sri. S. Rajmohan, Senior Government Pleader. We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the records.

35. The core issue involved in this case revolves upon Ext.P17 Vigilance Report. The Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board conducted an enquiry as to the allegations levelled against the former Temple Advisory Committee and submitted Ext.P17 report. The relevant paragraphs of Ext.P17 are extracted hereunder:

                 

                 

                 

36. The principal challenge in this Writ Petition is that the Travancore Devaswom Board ought to have accepted all the recommendations in Ext.P17 Vigilance Enquiry Report and blacklisted the respondents from future participation in TAC elections.

37. The Travacore Devaswom Board, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties and after a detailed consideration of various aspects of the matter, has decided not to blacklist the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee. While passing Ext.P32 proceedings, the Board took note of the finding of the Vigilance Officer that there is no irregularity in the activities of the former Temple Advisory Committee. From Ext.P32 proceedings, we find that the Board has accepted the explanation offered by the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee that the Anjili wood was purchased from Kottayam, so as to secure quality wood suitable for the construction of the temple at reasonable price.

38. On going through Ext.P17 Vigilance Enquiry Report, it is discernible that no serious irregularities were found by the Enquiry Officer in the activities of the Temple Advisory Committee. One of the findings of the Vigilance Officer is that the hasty purchase of Anjili wood was made with a view to get an extension of the term of the Temple Advisory Committee. However, the records reveal that the Board granted an extension to the former Temple Advisory Committee only for a short period of 15 days. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the decision to purchase Anjili wood was taken by the Temple Advisory Committee on the basis of the written advice of the Thanthri. The members of the former Temple Advisory Committee were excluded from the Registered Mandalam on the premise that they had filed litigations against the Board. If that be so, once the suit or proceedings instituted were disposed of by the Court, the affected persons are entitled to be included in the Registered Mandalam of the temple. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent Commissioner has passed Ext.P23 order re-inducting the members of Temple Advisory Committee into the Registered Mandalam on the premise that the writ petitions filed by them were disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P22 judgment. On going through Ext. P22 judgment, we find no directions interdicting the inclusion of the members of the former Temple Advisory Committee in the registered mandalam or in the new Temple Advisory Committee.

39. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Board is justified in passing Ext.P32 order and not accepting Ext.P17 enquiry report in its entirety. This Court is not expected to sit in appeal in the discretion exercised by the Board whether or not to accept the recommendation of the vigilance enquiry report. We do not find any arbitrariness and malafides on the part of the Travancore Devaswom Board while passing the impugned orders.

40. On an anxious consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel, pleadings and materials placed on record, we are of the firm view that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted.

                   The Writ Petition is dismissed.