V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

1. The above-captioned Writ Petition has been filed by the Ernakulam Tirumala Devaswom, a denominational temple belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin Community.

2. The principal grievance of the petitioner is directed against Ext. P15 dated 28.02.2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board to the Managing Adhikari of the petitioner Devaswom. By the said communication, the petitioner was informed that the Deputy Secretary had been deputed to conduct a statutory enquiry under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pursuant to the decision of the Board dated 16.02.2017. The communication further informed the petitioner that the enquiry would be conducted at the Devaswom office on 09.03.2017 and directed the Managing Adhikari to keep all the relevant records ready for inspection.

3. The petitioner has also challenged Ext. P20 order bearing No. E.15337/2014 dated 21.02.2017 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby the petitioner was informed that the Board had decided to initiate proceedings for taking over the management of the petitioner institution, after conducting a statutory enquiry pursuant to the Board's decision dated 16.02.2017. In addition to the prayers seeking to quash Exts. P15 and P20, the petitioner has also sought a declaration that the proceedings initiated by the first respondent are unconstitutional, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Cochin Devaswom Board, it is stated that the learned Ombudsman for the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards had submitted Ext. P11 report, wherein it was observed that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the issuance of Exts. P15 and P20. The allegation that the impugned proceedings were initiated on account of extraneous political considerations has been specifically denied. It is further stated that a complaint had been submitted before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala by a group of persons. The said complaint was forwarded to the Additional Secretary, Revenue (Devaswom) Department, who in turn forwarded it to the Cochin Devaswom Board for appropriate action. It is pursuant to the said complaint and the consequential proceedings that Exts. P15 and P20 came to be issued.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board and have carefully perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner arises from the recital contained in Exts. P15 and P20 that the Cochin Devaswom Board had initiated proceedings under Chapter X of the Act for the assumption of the management of the petitioner institution. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the communications came to be issued at the relevant point of time on the basis of the complaint forwarded from the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the consequential directions issued by the competent authorities. It is submitted that the communications were issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances then prevailing and were not intended to convey that the Board had taken a final decision to assume the management of the petitioner institution.

7. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that, as early as on 21.04.2017, the President of the Cochin Devaswom Board had issued Ext. P21 public notice clarifying that the Board had no intention of assuming the management of any institution by invoking the powers under Sections 98 and 99 of the Act. It was reiterated before us that the reference in Exts. P15 and P20 regarding the assumption of management reflected the position prevailing at that point of time and that the Board does not presently intend to invoke the powers under Sections 98 and 99 of the Act to assume the management of the petitioner Devaswom.

8. We have considered the above submissions. The power of the Board to assume the management of an institution is not an unfettered one. Such power can be exercised only in the circumstances specifically contemplated under Sections 98A to 98E of the Act, and only after strict compliance with the statutory safeguards. Section 99 of the Act further contemplates the conduct of an enquiry before any such assumption of management. In the facts of the present case, it appears that Exts. P15 and P20 came to be issued without a proper appreciation of the scope and object of the provisions contained in Sections 98 and 99 of the Act. The mere use of the expression "assumption of management" in the impugned communications, without reference to the statutory prerequisites, was capable of creating a genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the Board had already decided to take over the management of the institution.

9. If the object of the Board was only to inquire into the affairs of the petitioner Devaswom, the Act itself provides an appropriate mechanism. Section 87 of the Act empowers the competent authority to conduct enquiries into the affairs of institutions in the manner prescribed therein. Therefore, if the intention was merely to hold an enquiry, recourse ought to have been taken to the appropriate statutory provision instead of issuing communications suggesting an impending assumption of management.

10. In view of the categorical statement made before us by the learned Standing Counsel that the Cochin Devaswom Board does not propose to invoke the provisions of Sections 98 and 99 of the Act to assume the management of the petitioner institution, and having regard to the apprehension legitimately entertained by the petitioner on account of the language employed in Exts. P15 and P20, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be served by quashing the said communications.

11. It is made clear that, if the Cochin Devaswom Board proposes to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner in future, the same shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, after scrupulously adhering to the statutory procedure and the law laid down by this Court in the decisions governing the field.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.