Holding

Due to the dissolution of the Devaswom samities and formation of new advisory committees, the dispute was rendered moot and the High Court’s observations on the appellant society’s functioning were unnecessary, leading to the disposal of the appeals.

Summary

The writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 under Article 226 challenged the Cochin Devaswom Board’s permission to an appellant society to use the Oottupura of the Sri Poornathrayisha Temple, alleging excessive charges and secret receipt‑sharing. The Kerala High Court entertained the petition and issued directions that the appellant argued were beyond the pleadings and that the petition was not a genuine public‑interest litigation. The Supreme Court held that the matter became moot because, with effect from 1 August 2001, the Board dissolved all Devaswom samities and constituted new advisory committees, rendering the dispute irrelevant. Moreover, the Court observed that the High Court should not have delved into disputed facts or made observations on the society’s credibility, and such observations are treated as inoperative. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the management of a temple by a Devaswom Board is maintainable as a public‑interest litigation.
Whether the High Court could entertain the petition and pass directions beyond the pleadings.
Effect of the dissolution of Devaswom samities and the constitution of new advisory committees on the pending dispute.
Scope of judicial intervention in statutory temple administration.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

public interest litigationwrit jurisdictionArticle 226temple managementDevaswom Boarddissolution of samitiesadvisory committeesjudicial reviewmaintainability

Judgment

A THE PRESIDENT, POORNATHRA YISHA SEV A SANG HAM,
TH RI PUN ITHU RA
V.

K. THILAKAN KA VENAL AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 3, 2005
B
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.)

Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Public Interest
C litigation-Management of temple-Dispute as regards permission granted
by Devaswom Board to appellant-society for use of temple dining hall
(Oottupura)-High Court entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions-
Correctness of-Held : That question does not require consideration in view
of the intervening circumstance of dissolution of Dewaswom samities and
constitution of new advisory committees-Nevertheless, observations made by
D High Court as regard the functioning of appellant-society and its credibility
were imnecessary-Disputedfacts being involved, High Court should not have
gone into them.

Respondent No. I filed writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution questioning correctness of the decision taken by the Cochin
E Devaswom Board in granting permission to the appellant - society for use
ofOottupura (dining hall) of the Sri Poornathrayisha Temple. The decision
rendered by High Court on the petition is questioned by the appellants,
primarily on the ground that it should not have entertained it.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
F
HELD: I. There is no need to go into the primal question of
maintainability of the petition in view of the accepted position that with
effect from 1.8.2001 the Board, on getting approval of the bye laws, issued
a circular dissolving all the Devaswom samities in the various temples with
G effect from 1.8.2001 and consequently new advisory committees have been
constituted. (1085-D-E)

Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK. Rajan, (2003) 7
sec 546, referred to.
H 1082
l '

PRESIDENTv. K.T. KA VENAL (PASAYAT..J.] I 083
J 2. For the purpose of adjudication of the dispute before the High A
Court which only related to the permission granted to use the Oottupura,
other observations and views expressed by the Division Bench are treated
as inoperative. Since disputed facts were involved, the High Court should
not have gone into them even in respect of the primary grievances of the
writ petitioner. (I 085-Ff B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 874-876 of
2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.2001 and 26.9.2001 of the
Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 33180 of2000 (Y) And R.P. No. 130/2001. C
C.S, Vaidyanathan and Ms. V. Mohana for the Appellant.

C.S. Rajan and A. Raghunath for the Respondent Nos. 2-3.

T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Subramonium Prasad, Gopala Krishnan. R, and D
C.N. Jha for the Respondent No. I.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

The decision rendered by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court is E
questioned by the appellants, primarily on the ground that it should not have
entertained the original petition which was purportedly filed as public interest
litigation.

A briefreference to the factual position would suffice. Respondent No.
1 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in F
T
short the 'Constitution') questioning correctness of the decision taken by the
Cochin Devaswom Board (in short the 'Board') in granting permission to the
appellant-society for use ofOottupura (dining hall) on the left side of the Sti
Pooranathrayisha Temple. Grievance of the respondent No. I - writ petitioner
was that the appellant-society was charging huge charges by letting the G
Oottupura to various devotees for· performing pooja in the temple and for
permitting feasts to he organized on the Oottupura.

It was alleged that some officials and the appellant-society had made
some secret arrangements for sharing the receipts surreptitiously. Grievance
was made that the appellant-society was in fact operating as a parallel Board. H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] I S.C.R.

A A counter-affidavit was filed by the Board taking the stand that the present
appellant-society was in no way interfering with •he administration of the
temple. The poojas and the routine functions of the temple are conducted
under supervision and guidance of some officials as per traditional customs.
The present appellant-society took initiative to conduct annual functions and
B other functions. Since amount that was being received by the Board was
meagre and the appellant-Society wanted to provide necessary amenities in
the Oottupura by converting it to a modem marriage hall so that financial
benefits would accrue to the Board, the decision was taken to allow the
appellant-society to give the hall on rent to be used for marriage purposes.
The amount offered by the appellant-society was much more than what the
C Board used to earlier received. The appellant-society and the Board took the
stand that the Writ petitioner had suppressed material facts and relevant facts
without ulterior motives. The society was functioning for the welfare of the
temple and the devotees; it was not functioning
,. as a profit making body. The
society was registered under the Travancore Cochin Literacy, Scientific and
Charitable Societies Registration Act. The petition was not in essence a public
D interest litigation but was filed to wreck personal vendetta. The High Court
gave certain directions which are contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
impugned judgment which are contrary to and/or beyond the pleadings.

Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior counsel for the appellant-society
E submitted that the High Court had travelled beyond the grievances made in
the petition and in any event the purported public interest litigation was not
maintainable. There was nothing irregular in the action of the Board in granting
permission to the appellant-Society. Certain observations made by the High
Court were beyond the prayers and the pleadings; and the appellant-Society
has been condemned without hearing.
F
Learned counsel for the Board supported the stand of the appellant.
However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. I i.e. the writ
petitioner submitted that the appeal was infructuous because of some
intervening circumstances and in any event the writ petition was filed in
public interest and the High Court's directions are innocuous and do not, in
G any way, reflect on the credibility of the appellant-society.

The scope and ambit of a public interest litigation in the matter of
management of a temple, governed by the provisions of a statutory enactment,
came up for consideration of this Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing
H Committee v. CK. Rajan, [2003] 7 SCC 546. It was, inter alia, held as
PRESIDENT v. K.T. KA VENAL [PASA YAT, J.) 1085
follows : A
"When the administration of the temple is within its control and it
exercises the said power in terms of a statute, the state, it is expected,
normally would itself probe into the alleged irregularities. If the State
through its machinery as provided for in one Act can arrive at the
requisite finding of fact for the purpose of remedying the defects, it B
may not find it necessary to take recourse to the remedies provided
for in another statute. It is trite that recourse to a provision to another
t statute may be resorted to when the State finds that its powers under
the Act governing the field is inadequate. The High Courts and the
Supreme Court would not ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus directing C
the State to carry out its statutory functions in a particular manner.
Normally, the Courts would ask the State to perform its statutory
functions, if necessary within a time frame and undoubtedly as and
when an order is passed by the State in exercise of its power under
the Statute, it will examine the correctness or legality thereof by way
of judicial review." D
We need not go into a primal question in view of the accepted position
that with effect from J .8.2001 the Board, on getting approval of the bye laws,
issued a circular dissolving all the Devaswom samities in the various temples
with effect from 1.8.2001 and consequently new advisory committees have
been constituted. E
Above being the position, we feel that nothing further remains to be
done in this appeal except noticing that certain observations made, as regards
the functioning of the appellant-society and its credibility were unnecessary.
For the purpose of adjudication of the dispute before the High Court which F
only related to the permission granted to use Oottupura, other observations
and views expressed by the Division Bench are, therefore, treated as
inoperative. Since disputed facts were involved, the High Court should not
have gone into them even in respect of the primary grievances of the writ
petitioner.
G
With the aforesaid observations these appeals are disposed of with no
orders as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.