Judgment :- The short but serious question that arises for consideration is, whether Sreenarayana Guru Mandiram involved in the case is a 'temple' within the meaning of R.6(2)(a)(ii) of The Abkari Shop's (Disposal in auction) Rules 1974, for short, The Rules. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit instituted by respondents 1 and 2 for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting the sub-shop in question in the plaint schedule property. The temporary injunction prayed for was granted by the trial court. On appeal the appellate court holding that "the idol installed in the Gurumandiram is a deity and the Gurumandiram referred to in the plaint is a temple as defined in The Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974" affirmed the order of the trial court. The appellate court, it is seen from the judgment, has rejected all other contentions raised by the plaintiffs namely that the sub shop is situated within 400 metres from the supposed educational institution, St. Mary's Residential Central School and the Anganavadi etc. The plaintiffs have not challenged those findings and therefore the only question that survives for consideration is the one mentioned above. The answer to the above question depends upon the construction of the relevant provisions contained in The Rules. Temple has been defined thus: "Temple means, a place of public religious worship by Hindus where deity is installed under a building and includes a mutt also: Provided that any structure on the road side, pavement or in a compound of a private building with or without a deity shall not be considered as a Temple". It is clear from this definition that in order to call an institution a temple, it must be a place of public religious worship by Hindus where a deity is installed in a building. The proviso says that any structure on the road side, pavement or in a compound of a private building with or without a deity shall not be treated as a temple. Though the definition is not very happily worded, the content thereof is clear in that, in order to call an institution a temple, the same must be a place of public religious worship by Hindus where a deity is installed. This definition of the word 'temple' to my mind, does not convey a meaning different from or in excess of the ordinary meaning, it has already acquired. This definition of the word 'temple' to my mind, does not convey a meaning different from or in excess of the ordinary meaning, it has already acquired. In other words this definition is not meant to prevent the word 'temple' receiving its ordinary, popular and natural sense. 3. What then is a 'temple'? Judicial pronouncements would show that an institution to be called a temple, must be shown to have a sastric basis. What is meant by the expression 'sastric basis's? It means, the institution must conform to 'Agama sastras' basically, but these Agama sastras have also got an equivalent when particular practices have obtained recognition as constituting long religious practice and usage of a substantial large class of persons. (Vide Ramanasramam v. Commr. H.R. & C.E. Madras, AIR. 1961 Mad. 265, Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal, AIR. 1953 SC. 491). Mukherjea in his Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 4th edition has dealt with the subject "consecration of idols" thus: "It seems that something like customary rites have grown up which are followed usually by people of particular provinces or belonging to particular religious sects. Generally speaking, all these ritualistic treatises insist on a preliminary ceremony by which the idol is purified and cleansed from all impurities that attach to it at the hands of the artist. For this purpose a separate structure known as Adhivas Mandap is set up together with an ablution hall known as Snan Mandap. The image is first carried in procession to the Snan Mandap. The founder then utters the Sankalpa Mantra or formula of resolve and the priests begin their functions. The image is bathed and washed and then follow the different ceremonies including Horn a or offering of oblation to the sacred fire and Pran Pratistha or vivification ceremony by which the eternal spirit is supposed to be infused into the idol. The image is then take n to the temple and the temple itself is formally dedicated to the deity. The whole idea is that by these sacred rites, a simple piece of wood or stone becomes a fit receptacle of divinity. According to orthodox Hindu ideas Pratistha or consecration is the means by which the universal soul is localised and made to dwell at a particular place". The whole idea is that by these sacred rites, a simple piece of wood or stone becomes a fit receptacle of divinity. According to orthodox Hindu ideas Pratistha or consecration is the means by which the universal soul is localised and made to dwell at a particular place". Idols or deities consecrated and installed in shrines are the sculptured forms of God and therefore one who asserts that a particular building where deity is installed is a temple and hence a place of public religious worship by Hindus should establish that the institution has a sastric basis; or in any event by immemorial public usage has been regarded as a place of public religious worship notwithstanding its non-conformance with the Agama sastras. 4. The question as to whether samadhies of saints can be recognised as religious institutions is not relevant to be considered in the instant case because it is not the case of either party that Sreenarayana Gurumandiram in question is the place of Swamy's Samadhi. This question therefore is left open. 5. We have already seen that to call an institution a temple, it must conform to Agama sastras; that is. the idol is consecrated and by such consecration the universal soul is localised and made to dwell in a particular place. When we say the universal soul we thereby mean The God Almighty. To Swami Vivekananda (See His paper on Hinduism read at the Parliament of Religions on 19th September, 1893) "God is the ever-active providence, by whose power systems after systems are being evolved out of chaos, made to run for a time and again destroyed. This is what the Brahmin boy repeats everyday: "The sun and the moon, the Lord created like the suns and moons of previous cycles". Yet another definition given by Swamiji is: "God is an infinite circle whose circumference is nowhere, but whose centre is everywhere. He works through all hands; sees through all eyes; walks on all feet; breathes through all bodies; lives in all life; speaks through every mouth; and thinks through every brain". The God concept in Hindu religion therefore is that every being is His part; in other words He is reflected in every being. 6. He works through all hands; sees through all eyes; walks on all feet; breathes through all bodies; lives in all life; speaks through every mouth; and thinks through every brain". The God concept in Hindu religion therefore is that every being is His part; in other words He is reflected in every being. 6. It is in this background we have to consider whether Sreenarayana Guru was a Hindu God so as to say that the building where his idol is installed, is a temple within the meaning of The Rules. A reference in this connection to his teachings and as to how he has been looked upon by his contemporaries is indispensible. The following message given by Swamiji in the year 1917 is telling: These messages would show that Sree Narayana Guru wanted his followers as also the general public to understand that he did not believe in idol worship and that he did not belong to any one particular religion. To quote Vyasa, he was a perfect man even beyond the pale of our caste and creed. The aim of this great social reformer of Kerala who moved like a colossus on the soils of Kerala till his end in the year 1928, was to have an universal religion where there would be no difference between man and man. It is interesting to note that this was a period where religions were proving to be great obstacles in the way of human unity. This great apostle of truth therefore placed before the humanity as a whole the "one caste, one religion and one God for man" theory. He thereby meant an universal religion. It is interesting to note that this was a period where religions were proving to be great obstacles in the way of human unity. This great apostle of truth therefore placed before the humanity as a whole the "one caste, one religion and one God for man" theory. He thereby meant an universal religion. The universal religion, to quote again Swami Vivekananda, is one "which will have no location in place or time; which will be infinite, like the Godit will preach, and whose sun will shine upon the followers of Krishna and of Christ, on saints and sinners alike; which will not be Brahminic or Buddhistic, Christian or Mohammedan, but the sum total of all these and still have infinite space for development; which in its catholicity will embrace in its infinite arms, and find a place for, every human being, from the lowest grovelling savage not far removed from the brute, to the highest man towering by the virtues of his head and heart almost above humanity, making society stand in awe of him and doubt his human nature. It will be a religion which will have no place for persecution or intolerance in its polity, which will recognise divinity in every man and woman, and whose whole scope, whose whole force, will be centred in siding humanity to realise its own true, diving nature". 7. This great social reformer of Kerala thus refused to get himself identified with anyone religion, caste, creed or sect. He belonged to the humanity; or to put it differently, humanity owned him. It is relevant in this context to take note of what late C. Kesavan, one of the admires of Swamiji has to say: That he lived a social reformer saint, lived above religion is clear from his conduct in installing a mirror, instead of idol, in a temple: a wooden plank with the inscription, Satyam, dharmam, daya and sneham, in another temple. He believed in the upliftment of the downtrodden whether or not he belonged to a particular religion, caste or creed. Such a great soul he was. As stated by Sri. C. Kesavan, some of his followers however, are trying to confine his greatness, by installing his statues, within the four walls of a place of worship. He believed in the upliftment of the downtrodden whether or not he belonged to a particular religion, caste or creed. Such a great soul he was. As stated by Sri. C. Kesavan, some of his followers however, are trying to confine his greatness, by installing his statues, within the four walls of a place of worship. He is one, as already noted, who belonged to humanity; who lived above religions and therefore no one religion can claim that he belongs to that religion. Every religion therefore can claim that he belongs to that religion and at the same time, never belonged to that religion. A reference in this context to the following passage from an essay of Sahodaran Ayyappan, Another ardent admirer of Sreenarayana Guru, "Oru Jathi, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam" philosophy of Sreenarayana Guru, is profitable: About the attempts on the part of some of his disciples to make him an Avtar, this is what late Ayyappan has to say: Before I close this discussion, I would like to touch upon an incident in the life of Sreenarayana Guru which in my view would give a quiet us to the dispute before us. The incident is this: At Sivagiri the Guru was standing under a spreading mango tree. A Brahmacharin arrived there with flowers at about 7 in the morning and prostrated before the image of the Mother of Wisdom and from there went on to offer worship at a little shrine where a full size painting of the Guru himself was established. He stood there and chanted the renowned "meaning thereby the Guru verily is Brahma, the Guru verily is Vishnu, the Guru verily is Maheswara and made the offerings. 'A flame was waved round accompanied by the tinkling of a bell while the worshipper made mystical symbols in the air'. Sreenarayana Guru on seeing this mode of worship remarked to the group of devotees who stood around him thus: "Look at that, here I stand in reality without my breakfast and still waiting for it; but my paintings get all the elaborate ritualist attention. That is due to the religion". (Vide The word of the Guru by Natarajaguru) This attitude of Sreenarayana Guru towards such worshippers is proof positive that he despised the belief in the followers that he is an Avtar entitled to a place in the pantheon of Hindu Gods. 8. That is due to the religion". (Vide The word of the Guru by Natarajaguru) This attitude of Sreenarayana Guru towards such worshippers is proof positive that he despised the belief in the followers that he is an Avtar entitled to a place in the pantheon of Hindu Gods. 8. Sreenarayana Guru therefore cannot be treated as an Avtar of God; he was only a social reformer who believed in the welfare of the humanity as a whole although some of his followers, as stated by two ardent followers of Sreenarayana Guru namely Sri C. Kesavan and Sri Sahodaran Ayyappan, have been trying to get him recognissd as Avtar. If that be so, Sreenarayana Guru Mandirams where the statue of Sree Narayana Guru is installed, to my mind, cannot be said to be a temple ie., a "place of public religious worship for Hindus" within the meaning of that expression in The Rules. 9. The above position notwithstanding the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Yagna Purushadasji v.. Muldas ( A.I.R.1966 S.C. 1119) contended that the teachings of Narayana Guru would show that he is a saint and a religious reformer and therefore he must be treated as a God and as such the Gurumandirams where his idols are installed, are tamples within the meaning of The Rules. This decision in my view, has no application to the facts of the case. Sreenarayana unlike Swaminarayan and his religious reforms dealt with in the said ruling, was not a religious reformer attempted to form a different sect. Similarly the decision of the Madras High Court in Pichai v. Commr.H.R.&. C Endowments A.I.R.1971 Mad. 405) has also no application here. It is true that the learned judges there relying on Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (A.I.R.1957 S.C.133) has held as follows: "We are, therefore, of the view that the performance of ceremonies such as prana pratishta¬kumbabhishekam etc., are not essential for the installation of the nalvar idols and if such idols had been worshipped by the public as of right without let or hindrance, that would be sufficient to bring the place where the idols are kept within the meaning of 'temple' under the Act...". But in the Supreme Court case, as a matter of fact, after the consecration of the temple alone, the idol was installed. But in the Supreme Court case, as a matter of fact, after the consecration of the temple alone, the idol was installed. It may be relevant in the context to take note of the following excerpt from the said ruling of the Supreme Court: "...In the present case, it is common ground that the consecration of the temple and the installation of the idol of Sri. Radhakrishnaji w ere made with great solemnity and in accordance with the Sastras ...". The said decision, lam of the view, does not support the case of the plaintiffs. It is also -relevant in this context to note that the definition of the word "Temple" in The Act which was construed in these decisions is different from the definition of that word in The Rules. 10. The learned counsel next contended that since Sreenarayana Guru is a spiritual teacher, he must be deemed to have attained the status of an universal soul ie. God. In support of this argument he cited the definition of 'Guru' in Encyclopaedia Britanica Vol. 10. 'The Guru' defined there is one who "prescribes whatever disciplines are called for and gives to the student an initiatory formula known as a m antra to assist in meditation". The Guru understood by Hindus therefore is the spiritual teacher who gives to his student a mantra, to assist in meditations. To such a student his spiritual teacher is God and that position is highlighted in these verses: That means, only such a Guru who gives his student an initiatory mantra which is the first step to Sanyasa, will be qualified to he called a God. Even there the teacher is only a personal God. He cannot be equated with an universal God, worshipped by Hindus generally. The above argument of the learned counsel therefore is rejected. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents has another contention and it is this: To call an institution a temple, establishment of an idol is not an essential condition; it is enough if it is a place of public religious worship and if the people believe that there is a divine presence in that place and by offering worship at that place they are likely to be the receipiants of the blessings of God although there is no idol or a structure or other parapherralia. In support of this argument he relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in J Ramaswamy v. H. R. E. Madras (A. I. R.1951 Mad. 473). It is true that the Madras High Court has stated so. But on a study of the judgment it can be seen that this decision was arrived at after construing the definition of 'temple' in S.9(12) of The Madars Hindu Religious Endowments Act which is different from the definition of that expression in The Rules. Mukherjea in his treatise on The Hindu law of Religious and Charitable Trusts too has opined thus but in conclusion the learned author has stated thus:-"However in almost alt cases, a temple does possess an idol". Here going by the definition of 'temple' it is imperative that a deity should be installed. This argument therefore is also rejected. 12. The finding of the lower appellate court that "the idol installed in the Gurumandiram is a deity and the Gurumandiram referred to in the plaint is a temple" is liable to be vacated. I accordingly vacate the same. 13. In the light of the view expressed above namely that the Guru Mandirams are not temples, it is unnecessary to consider the argument of the counsel for the petitioner based on the proviso to the clause in The Rules defining "temple". It is all the more so because this can be decided only after taking elaborate evidence. This question therefore is left open. For the reasons stated above, the C. R. P. is allowed. No costs. Before I part with this order, I would like to bring to the notice of the Government that it is only in the fitness of things if The Rules are further amended and the definition of 'temple' in The Rules is substituted by an appropriate definition or at least the definition of that word, which is reproduced herewith, in The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, Act 2 of 1927: "9(12). "Temple means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of religious worship". so that places of worship like Sreenarayana Guru Mandirams can also be treated as places of worship for the purposes of The Rules. so that places of worship like Sreenarayana Guru Mandirams can also be treated as places of worship for the purposes of The Rules. In the case of Sreenarayana Guru Mandirams it is all the more so because Sreenarayana Guru, in one of his messages, has stated thus: "Liquor is poison, don't prepare it, don't sell it, don't use it". I am confident that the Government will take serious note of this aspect and do what is needed.