Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 642 (KER)

G. Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

2002-09-24

A.LEKSHMIKUTTY, S.SANKARASUBBAN

body2002
Judgment :- Sankarasubban, J. O.P.No.24797 of 2002 is filed by a devotee of the Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayoor challenging Ext.P1 order by which the eighth respondent has been appointed as Administrator removing the seventh respondent from the post. Along with the Original Petition, a petition for stay in C.M.P.No.41997 of 2002 was filed. By order dated 2nd September, 2002, Ext.P1 order was stayed. Further, it was stated that the seventh respondent to continue as Administrator even if the eighth respondent has taken charge. 2. The main basis on which the Original Petition is filed is that the body to appoint the Administrator is the Managing Committee and the Commissioner cannot exercise that power. It was further stated that the eighth respondent is not from the Revenue service. Hence, is not qualified to be appointed. Subsequent to the filing of the Original Petition, a petition was filed to amend the Original Petition by challenging Act 20 of 2001 of Guruvayoor Devaswom Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Objections have been filed to the C.M.P. The eighth respondent has entered appearance and wanted that the C.M.P. for stay should be heard immediately. It was in these circumstances that we heard the C.M.P. 3. As per the Act, there should be a Managing Committee. The Managing Committee consists of three permanent members, viz, Zamorian Raja of Calicut, eldest member of Mallisseri illom and Thanthri of the Temple. In addition, there are six more members; one representative of the employees of the Devaswom to be mentioned by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers. Another five persons of whom one shall be member of a Scheduled Caste, nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers from among persons having interest in the Temple. Originally, the term of office of the members was for two years. Subsequently, in 1998, the term was enhanced to five years. Now, it has been reduced to two. The quorum of members was originally fixed as three and now as four. According to the Act, so far as the appointment of Administrator is concerned, it is done under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act enables the Managing Committee to appoint an officer of Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector to be the Administrator for the Devaswom from among a panel of names furnished by the Government. There is another officer called, Commissioner. Section 14 of the Act enables the Managing Committee to appoint an officer of Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector to be the Administrator for the Devaswom from among a panel of names furnished by the Government. There is another officer called, Commissioner. The Commissioner has got the overall supervision of the Managing Committee. So far as the appointment of Arbitrator is concerned, from the panel sent by the Government, one person has to be appointed. 4. It appears that by Act 20 of 2001, copy of which is produced as Ext.P2 along with C.M.P.No.44265 of 2002,certain amendments have been effected. A new section, ‘Section 6A’ has been introduced. That Section says that whereby reason of the expiry of the term of office of the members nominated under clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 4 or by resignation, or otherwise, any vacancy occurs in the committee and the number of the remaining members cannot constitute the quorum for a meeting of the Committee as specified in sub-section (3) of Section 7, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commissioner shall hold charge and exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee until the vacancy is filled up as provided in this Act to constitute the quorum. Section 7 of the Act was amended by which the quorum is fixed as four instead of three. By virtue of this amendment, the term of the nominated members of the Managing Committee was over on 3.7.2002. By virtue of this Amendment Act, the Commissioner is now functioning as Managing Committee and exercising powers. According to the Commissioner, the present Administrator’s, viz., seventh respondent’s deputation was over and the Committee sought for extension of the term of the present Administrator. But no action was taken by the Government. Subsequently, the Government gave a reply not extending the term of office of the seventh respondent and sending a penal of three persons for the office. The Commissioner has chosen the eighth respondent to be appointed as Administrator. It is in this background that the 8th respondent was appointed as Administrator. Even though objections have been filed to the amendment application, we don’t find any ground to reject the application. Hence, the application for amendment is allowed. 5. The Commissioner has chosen the eighth respondent to be appointed as Administrator. It is in this background that the 8th respondent was appointed as Administrator. Even though objections have been filed to the amendment application, we don’t find any ground to reject the application. Hence, the application for amendment is allowed. 5. If we look in to the appointment of the eighth respondent as per the amended provision, we don’t find anything wrong in the Commissioner appointing the eighth respondent, expect that the eighth respondent was not the Deputy Collector nor was in the Revenue service. One of the objection raised against the eighth respondent is that he does not have the required qualifications as stated under Section 14 of the Act. The question whether the entrustment of the management to the Commissioner is valid or not is to be considered at the final hearing of the Original Petition, since the respondent had to be given opportunity to file reply to the Original Petition as amended. 6. We put question to the learned Government Pleader as to why to new members were not nominated. Learned Government submitted that nomination will be done without delay. In the constitution of Managing Committee the incorporation of three permanent members was with the intention that the Managing Committee should always exist and that is how previously the minimum members in the quorum was fixed as three. Now, it is reduced in to two. In this context, we wish to state that the power that is given to the Government is only the power to supervise and manage the secular affairs of the Temple. We feel the prima facie the enhancement of quorum from 3 to 4 has defeated, the purpose for which the permanent three members were included. Prima facie we feel that the entrustment of the management to the commissioner goes against the spirit of the Act. According to us, outside management is not the aim of the Act. We do not wish to further elaborate on this question lest it may affect the final decision in the case. It is told that the seventh respondent’s deputation is over and he has been called back. In the circumstance, necessarily a new person has to be appointed as Administrator. Hence, we dispose of the C.M.P. in the following way: 7. We do not wish to further elaborate on this question lest it may affect the final decision in the case. It is told that the seventh respondent’s deputation is over and he has been called back. In the circumstance, necessarily a new person has to be appointed as Administrator. Hence, we dispose of the C.M.P. in the following way: 7. The commissioner shall consult with the three existing members of the Managing Committee regarding the appointment of the Administrator from among the persons, whose names are included in the panel sent by the Government. Commissioner shall convene a meeting of the three permanent members and at that time, the three members as well as the Commissioner shall consider the name sent by the Government and the person, whose name has been approved by the majority, shall be appointed as Administrator as interim arrangement. We direct the Government to nominate the remaining members to the Managing Committee, within one month from today. The commissioner shall convene a meeting of himself and the three permanent members, within one week from today to consider the names sent by the Government for appointment of Administrator. Till the meeting takes place and choses the Administrator, the eighth respondent shall provisionally continue as Administrator. This is without prejudice to the ultimate decision in the Original petition. The Government shall nominate members under Section 6 (d) and (e) of the Act, within one month from today. This court shall be informed about the person, who has been chosen as Administrator by the three permanent members and the commissioner, within two weeks from today. Post the Original Petition and other C.M.Ps. after two weeks.