K. V. Jayakumar, J.

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

2. The 1st petitioner is an association of devotees of the temple, namely Vazhuthanam Sree Mahavishnu Temple (for the sake of brevity, “the temple”), which is registered as Samithy under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The 2nd petitioner is the President of the said Samithy. Ext. P1 is the true copy of the Memorandum of Association and byelaw of the samithy dated 23.02.2025.

3. The petitioners state that the 9th respondent, Sri K.M. Manoj is the Melshanthi of the temple who is serving in the temple even after the age of superannuation, claiming to be a Karaima shanthi.

4, The petitioners assert that respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action against the 9th respondent and allowed him to continue as Melshanthi of Vazhuthanam Sree Mahavishnu Temple, despite an adverse vigilance report issued against him in the enquiry conducted by the 5th respondent, the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, TDB. With these assertions, the petitioners approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

                  “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P8 and may set aside the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

                  (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to initiate disciplinary action against the 9th respondent pursuant Ext. P6 and P11 reports and conclude the same within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

                  (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing to remove the 9th respondent from the service of the 2nd respondent, because he is having no karaima right.”

5. The 2nd respondent, Travancore Devancore Board represented by its Secretary, filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent contended that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2nd respondent asserted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition and to seek the reliefs.

6. It is stated in the counter that the 1st petitioner, being an association, is unauthorisedly interfering with the administration of the temple which is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The 2nd respondent asserted that the 1st petitioner is a parallel committee or organisation which cannot function in the temple premises without the approval of the Board.

7. It is contended that the 9th respondent, Sri K. M. Manoj, is a member of Karippuram Illam, which holds the karaima right to depute Melshanthis to the temple, and that he has been serving in that capacity at the temple since 2004. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on 19.02.2018, the Vigilance Security Officer submitted a report stating that the 9th respondent failed to open the temple on time and also commented on his behaviour. Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to him and he submitted a reply.

8. The learned Ombudsman has forwarded a copy of the complaint submitted by the 2nd petitioner against the 9th respondent, alleging that he is continuing in the job unauthorisedly, making false complaints, and disrupting the renovation activities of the temple. The 4th respondent, the Commissioner of Devaswom, has forwarded the complaint to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner submitted Ext. R2(a) report stating that due to the personal enmity between the previous Temple Advisory Committee Secretary and some members with the temple employees, the peaceful atmosphere of the temple is often disrupted. On the basis of Ext. R2(a) report the Devaswom Commissioner deputed the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in the matter and to submit a report. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner submitted Ext.R2(b) report dated 15.07.2022, recommending strict warning to the Shanthi. Thereafter, the Devaswom Commissioner submitted Ext.R2(c) report dated 16.09.2022 recommending vigilance enquiry. Thereafter, a Vigilance enquiry was conducted against the 9th respondent Shanthi.

9. It is further contended in the counter that the 2nd petitioner and others filed Ext.P12 complaint before the learned Ombudsman and the same is pending consideration. The attempt of the petitioners is to initiate parallel proceedings before this Court while suppressing the proceedings pending before the learned Ombudsman. According to the 2nd respondent, this amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the petitioners are attempting to create unrest in the temple due to personal vengeance and a grudge against the 9th respondent.

10. The 9th respondent, the shanthi of the temple, filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. It is stated in the counter that there was a Temple Advisory Committee in the temple and one Mr.Krishnakumar was the Secretary of the said Committee. Sri. Krishnakumar was removed from the Advisory Committee vide Ext. R9(a) order of the 4th respondent dated 18.02.2019. Thereafter, the said Krishnakumar formed the petitioner Association in February 2025. Further, it stated that the date of birth of the 9th respondent is 23.05.1974 and he was aged only 52 years and 4 months on the date of filing of the writ petition. The age of superannuation for all the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board is 56 years. However, insofar as the Karaima employees are concerned, it is 70 years as per the order dated 27.05.2025. False complaints were made against the 9th respondent by Sri. Krishnakumar, who was inimical towards him.

11. From among the rival contentions, the following issues arose for our consideration:

                  (1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable?

                  (2) Whether the reliefs claimed in the writ petition can be granted?

12. Sri. P. Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Board ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 9th respondent on the basis of Ext.P11 report of the Chief Vigilance Officer who recommended disciplinary action against the Shanthi. He further submitted that the 9th respondent had failed to produce the evidence showing that he holds a Karaima right to discharge the functions as a Shanthi in the temple. If at all they had a karaima right, that has been abandoned by the father of the 9th respondent.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that Ext.P8 communication is challenged after 21 years and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of doctrine akin to delay and laches.

14. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the 1st petitioner, Samithy, has no locus standi to file the writ petition. The 1st petitioner Samithy is functioning without any approval from the Board and as a parallel Temple Advisory Committee. According to the counsel, the 1st petitioner Samithy is an unauthorised committee.

15. The learned counsel would further submit that the 9th respondent is a member of Karaima family and therefore he is entitled to be appointed as Karaima Shanthi and can work until he attains the age of superannuation, ie., 70 years.

16. The learned counsel for the 9th respondent would submit that the allegation that the 9th respondent retired on superannuation is factually incorrect, as he had attained only 52 years of age at the time of institution of the writ petition.

17. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and perused the records.

18. The 1st petitioner is an association of devotees registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1955. Ext.P1 is the Memorandum of Association and Bye-Law of the Samithy. As per Ext. P1, the main objective of the Samithy is to sensitise members of the Hindu religion about the rituals of the temple and to promote an understanding of the culture of our State. Furthermore, it aims to assist the Board in the conduct of festivals and the renovation of the temple.

19. The main relief sought in the writ petition is to set aside Ext.P8 communication issued by the Secretary of the Travacore Devaswom Board to the Devaswom Commissioner with respect to the appointment of Karaima Shanthi in Vazhuthanam Devaswom, Mavelikkara Group. Ext.P8 is extracted hereunder:

                  “Station : Thiruvananthapuram

                  ROC.No.1374/2002/His.I. Date : 19.02.2004

                  From

                  The Secretary

                  Travancore Devaswom Board.

                  To

                  The Devaswom Commissioner.

                  Subject:- Appointment of Karaima Santhi in Vazhuthanam

                  Devaswom, Mavelikkara group - Reg.

                  Reference:- 1. Your report No.ROC.10492/01/Santhi dated 21.05.2002.

                  2. Remarks of the Law Officer dated 28.01.2004.

                  Sir,

                  Regarding the matter, the law officer opined that the family in question has not waived the Karaima right. The family could not render karaima service admittedly on account of want of major member in the family to render the services. A karaima right of a family can be cancelled or revoked only after complying with the provisions contained in S. 28 of the TCHRI Act. In this case no such procedure has been complied with. As per the records now a major member is available in the family to render karaima services who has come forward with the request of the rest of the family to appoint him as the member of the family to render karaima services in the Devaswom. Hence, his request is allowed.

                  The Board accepted the remarks of the Law Officer and direct you to take necessary steps in the matter.”

20. Ext.P8 communication is dated 19.02.2004, which is challenged by the petitioner by instituting a writ petition in the year 2025.

21. Admittedly, Ext.P8 communication is challenged by the writ petitioners after the lapse of 21 years. No plausible explanation whatsoever is offered by the writ petitioners for the said delay.

22. In City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala ( (2009) 1 SCC 168) , the Hon’ble Apex court observed as follows:

                  “30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:

                  (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;

                  (b) the petition reveals all material facts;

                  (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

                  (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;

                  (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;

                  (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.

                  …………..”)

23. In Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley ((2024) 15 SCC 215) , the Apex Court observed that although no statutory limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, it must be instituted within a reasonable time, and the writ court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, must consider whether the petition has been filed within such a reasonable period. The relevant Paragraph of Mrinmoy Maity(Supra) is extracted hereunder:

                  “11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and laches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, inasmuch as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court.”

24. In the instant case, the Writ Petition is filed after the lapse of 21 years. That too, without stating any reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

25. Yet another important aspect is that the writ petitioners had failed to point out their locus standi to prefer such a writ petition. The administration of the temple is to be done by the Travancore Devaswom Board with the assistance of the Temple Advisory Committee, if any, constituted under Section 31A(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The petitioners have no case that they are the approved Temple Advisory Committee. From the records and submissions, we find that the 1st petitioner is a Samithy functioning in parallel and attempting to get involved in the affairs of the temple. It is for the writ petitioners to prove that they have the locus standi to file a writ petition of this nature.

26. The Apex Court in Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries ( (2005) 12 SCC 725)) , observed that where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of the dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.

27. Moreover, the petitioners contend that the 9th respondent, who is the Shanthi of the temple, continues as such after attaining the age of superannuation. But according to the 9th respondent, he had crossed only 52 years at the time of filing the writ petition. The petitioners would further submit that the family of the 9th respondent have no Karaima right of Shanthis in the temple. The said fact is also disputed by the 9th respondent. Those disputed questions of fact are to be decided in appropriate proceedings in a Civil Court by the parties. The writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact.

28. Yet another important allegation is that the Board and its officers had failed to initiate disciplinary action against the 9th respondent on the basis of the recommendation of Ext.P11, Vigilance Enquiry Report, dated 18.08.2021, submitted by the 5th respondent. In Clauses (3) and (4) of the recommendation of the Vigilance Enquiry Officer, there are some findings against the 9th respondent herein. The said Clauses read thus:

                   

                 

29. It is the prerogative of the Board to take appropriate decisions whether to accept the recommendation of the Vigilance wing or not. This Court cannot compel the Board to initiate disciplinary action against the 9th respondent by issuing a writ of mandamus.

30. On a careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, perusal of pleadings and materials placed on record, we are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the reliefs claimed cannot be granted.

                  In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.