THE PRESIDENT, POORNATHRAYISHA SEVA SANGHAM, THRIPUNITHURA versus K. THILAKAN KAVENAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1082 · Decided: 03-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE PRESIDENT, POORNATHRA YISHA SEV A SANG HAM, 
TH RI PUN I THU RA 
V. 
K. THILAKAN KA VENAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT 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. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
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) 
H 
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK. Rajan, (2003) 7 
sec 546, referred to. 
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 
T 
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 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.