Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar v. P R Muraleedharan
2004-09-22
J.M.JAMES, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
body2004
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner is a Sanyasi in the tradition of "Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal' and Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan of Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham, popularly known as "Vadayampadi Ashramam". 2. Swamy Bhagyananda Theertha Padar, a disciple of "Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal" has started an "Ashramam", in the year 1962 at Vadayampady in Ernakulam District. The "Ashramam" was later converted into a registered public charitable trust in the name and style 'Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham" with registration No. E. R.95/1973 under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Cultural Societies Registration Act, 1955. The object of setting up of such an "Ashramam" is to maintain "Sanathana Dharma" and to propagate the principles and teachings of "Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal". The "Ashramam" is mainly meant for Sanyasis to stay and do sadhana for spiritual upliftment. 3. Petitioner is a life member of the Trust and now the "Madathipathy" and "Sthiradhyakashan" (Supreme Head of the Mutt as well as the Permanent President) of the Ashramam. The previous "Madathipathy" and "Sthiradhyakshan" was one Kailasa Natha Theertha Padar, who became the "Madathipathy" and "Sthiradhyakshan" in the year 1994. Petitioner was ordained as the "Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan" by the above said Kailasa Natha Theertha Padar on 20.01.1996, by virtue of clause.27(b) of Ext. P1 trust deed. Since then petitioner has been residing in the Ashramam and discharging the duties of "Madathipathy" and "Sthiradhyakshan". Petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 5 and 6 to render adequate and effective police protection to his life and residence in the Ashramam and for discharging his functions as "Madathipathy' and "Sthiradhyakshan" of the Ashramam and to propagate the teaching of Chattambiswamy Thiruvadikal. Respondents 1 to 4 and their supporters are preventing the petitioner from performing his duties by force and causing threat to the life of the petitioner and his peaceful residence in the Ashramam. Respondents 1 to 4 have no authority to do so going by the provisions of the trust deed. Indisputably, the rights of parties have to be adjudicated on the basis of Ext. P1 trust deed. Powers, duties and privileges of the petitioner arid the contesting respondents and others flow from Ext. P1 trust deed. We have therefore gone through the provisions of Ext. P1 trust deed with meticulous care.
Indisputably, the rights of parties have to be adjudicated on the basis of Ext. P1 trust deed. Powers, duties and privileges of the petitioner arid the contesting respondents and others flow from Ext. P1 trust deed. We have therefore gone through the provisions of Ext. P1 trust deed with meticulous care. Once we understand the terms of the trust deed, it would be easy to resolve the disputes between the parties. 4. We have already indicated that Ext. P1 trust deed was registered as a public charitable trust in the name and style 'Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham". Sub clauses (a) to (k) Of Clause.4 deal with the object of the "Seva Sangham" namely, to maintain and propagate the principles and teachings of "Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal" and to do sadhana for the spiritual upliftment. Provisions have also been made in the trust deed to carry out publications, setting up of libraries, health centres, educational institutions etc. The Ashramam has got five acres of land and is conducting a school by name "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Peedom". The trust deed also authorises acquisition of movable and immovable properties to achieve its objectives. It also provides that the income derived from the property shall be utilised only for the achievement of the object of the trust. The trust deed further provides for setting up of a Seva Sangham by name "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham" consisting of persons who are governed by the terms of the trust deed. The trust deed provides for ordaining a sanyasi life long as a "Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan" of the Trust and also for setting up a "Bharanasamithi" (Managing Committee) with an elected President. However, the power to nominate the Secretary is specifically vested in the "Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy'. The Committee consists of 9 members who are to be elected from the general body. Disciples of 'Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal" can be made members of the Ashramam only by the "Sthiradhyakshan". Only persons who are believers of God and having good character and conduct can apply for membership, and the Committee can also deny membership to an applicant. Sthiradhyakshan has however got the powers to take a decision on appeal if an application for membership is rejected which is binding on the Committee.
Only persons who are believers of God and having good character and conduct can apply for membership, and the Committee can also deny membership to an applicant. Sthiradhyakshan has however got the powers to take a decision on appeal if an application for membership is rejected which is binding on the Committee. clause.11(g) of the trust deed states that if the general body takes a decision to amend any provision of the trust deed it should have the support of at least 51% of the total members present. But as per clause.27(B)(a) even this decision will have validity only if approved by the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. clause.11(c) specifically prohibits the general body to take any decision which affects the authority and privileges of Sthiradhyakshan or to discuss any such issues which affects his authority and privileges. clause.20(e) stipulates that movable or immovable property can be disposed of only with the prior written permission of the Sthiradhyakshan and that all the receipts be accounted in the name of the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy" in a nationalised Bank. 5. Various provisions of the trust deed would show that the Seva Sangham cannot function without a 'Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy". Unless rectified by the "Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy" the decision taken by the general body or the Committee will have no legal validity. Powers of Sthiradhyakshan are further enumerated in clause.27(a), which states that Sthiradhyakshan as well as Madathipathy of the Ashramam shall be one and the same person and who has a seal of his own apart from the common seal of the Seva Sangham. clause.27(b) states that once he is ordained as Sthiradhyakshan he will continue to function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy for life. However, it is open to him to ordain another person on oath with intimation to the Committee. If for any reason another person could not be ordained, the President of the Managing Committee should hold charge and within fifteen days a special general body should be convened and a disciple of Sree Chattambi Swami Thiruvadikal be ordained as Madathipathy. clause.28 stipulates that Sthiradhyakshan has got the power and freedom to dissolve the Committee and convene a special general body to conduct election and entrust the management to a new Committee. clause.33 stipulates that all the movable and immovable properties of the trust be acquired only in the name of Sthiradhyakshan.
clause.28 stipulates that Sthiradhyakshan has got the power and freedom to dissolve the Committee and convene a special general body to conduct election and entrust the management to a new Committee. clause.33 stipulates that all the movable and immovable properties of the trust be acquired only in the name of Sthiradhyakshan. clause.36 also stipulates that the rules and regulations be framed in future only in accordance with the provisions of trust deed and shall require the consent and approval of the general body and the Sthiradhyakshan. clause.37 stipulates that Committee can elect a member with the approval of the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy for the conduct of litigation or to appear in any government office on behalf of the Seva Sangham and that in no case the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy be dragged to any court. 6. We have gone through the various provisions of the trust deed with meticulous care. The authority, powers and privileges of Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy runs like a golden thread throughout the length and breadth of the provisions of the trust deed. The question is whether such a person could be dethroned by the Secretary of the school committee, first respondent and respondents 2 and 3 stated to be the Secretary and President of the Seva Sangham so as to loiter around the corridors of the civil and criminal courts to establish his rights which is clearly delineated in the registered trust deed. 7. Let us also examine the locus standi of respondents 1 to 4 to dethrone the petitioner from post of Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy, the Supreme Head of the Ashramam. Petitioner submits, while he was functioning as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashramam attempts were made by the School Committee to assume control of the Vidyapeedom which the petitioner objected since it goes against the terms of the trust deed. Being the Supreme Head of the Mutt the petitioner has got the right to take appropriate decision in the best interest of the Ashramam. Seventh respondent herein at that time sided with the School Committee and a general body was convened in May 2000 and seventh respondent was elected as the President and one Ravi Varma Pillai as the Secretary. Petitioner noticed that committee had disposed of certain movable and immovable properties of the Ashramam without his permission. 8.
Seventh respondent herein at that time sided with the School Committee and a general body was convened in May 2000 and seventh respondent was elected as the President and one Ravi Varma Pillai as the Secretary. Petitioner noticed that committee had disposed of certain movable and immovable properties of the Ashramam without his permission. 8. Petitioner therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under clause.28 of the trust deed dissolved the committee and decided to convene a special general body meeting to elect a new committee as per the provisions of the trust deed. Seventh respondent and others including the first respondent herein had in turn convened a meeting on 15102000 and tried to oust the petitioner from the post of Sthiradhyakshan and Mdathipathy, which they cannot going by the provisions of the trust deed. The Committee noticed that the petitioner was not seen in the Ashramam for a week and therefore be not allowed to stay in the Ashramam and the petitioner be informed of the same. Yet another meeting was stated to have been convened on 19112000 and decided to find out another Sanyas and to make necessary amendments to the provisions of the trust deed. Petitioner was however not allowed to discharge his duties as Shiradhyakshan and Madathipathy and was even attacked by the seventh respondent and others and was hospitalised on 19112000. Petitioner was an inpatient in the General Hospital from 19112000 to 23112000. Police registered a case against seventh respondent. Petitioner then filed O.S. No. 71 of 2000 on 22.11.2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry for a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Sthiradhyakshan as per the order dated 20.01.1996 of Kailasanatha Theertha Padar and for consequential reliefs. Petitioner along with the plaint produced his membership certificate No.37 dated 25.12.1995 issued by the former Sthiradhyakshan Brahmasree Kailasanatha Theertha Padar Swamikal and the letter dated 20.1.1990 by which petitioner was ordained as Sthiradhyakshan of the Ashramam. Seventh respondent herein who was the first defendant in the suit filed counter affidavit in I. A. No. 584 of 2000 refuting the various allegations. 7th respondent had contended that he is the duly elected President of the Committee and even questioned the authority of the petitioner. Incidentally we may point out that first respondent was the counsel who appeared for the first Defendant in the suit, the seventh respondent herein.
7th respondent had contended that he is the duly elected President of the Committee and even questioned the authority of the petitioner. Incidentally we may point out that first respondent was the counsel who appeared for the first Defendant in the suit, the seventh respondent herein. Due to financial constraints the petitioner a Sanyasi could not properly prosecute the suit and the suit was dismissed for default. Petitioner had in the meantime also undertaken a pilgrimage to Himalayas. When he came back he filed an application for setting aside the order of dismissal which was also dismissed. 9. The first respondent and respondents 2 to 4 however maintained the stand that a general body of the Seva Sangham had met on 7.1.2001 and resolved to amend the deed of Trust so as to abolish the post of Sthiradhyakshan and to vest his powers and duties with the President of the Seva Sangham. First respondent produced Ext. R1 (as amended). Ext. R1 was however challenged by one G. Parameswaran Nair, founder member of the Ashramam, filing O.S. No.30 of 2002 before the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry contending that the Committee or the General Body has no such power to abolish the post under the terms of the trust deed. The Committee headed by the seventh respondent, it is stated, had convened a general body on 7.1.2001 and decided to dedicate the school and the property which belong to the Ashramam to a separate Trust by name Parama Bhattara Gurukula Vidyapeedam Trust and had accordingly drew up Ext. R1 trust deed dated 22.1.2001. School functioning under the Seva Sangham is stated to be entrusted with the Vidyapeedom Trust with separate rules and regulations for its functioning. clause.4 of the deed states that the "Paramara Bhattara Kendriya Vidyalayam", the school now functioning under the management of Seva Sangham shall hereafter be under the Management of the Board of Trustees from time to time elected by the Trustees above named and the trustees shall frame separate rules and regulations for the conduct of the functions of the trust.
clause.4 of the deed states that the "Paramara Bhattara Kendriya Vidyalayam", the school now functioning under the management of Seva Sangham shall hereafter be under the Management of the Board of Trustees from time to time elected by the Trustees above named and the trustees shall frame separate rules and regulations for the conduct of the functions of the trust. Para 16 of the deed states that the assignment to trust be irrevocable and clause.10 states that the President, Secretary and a member of Seva Santham elected by the General Body of the Seva Sangham from time to time shall be the members of the Board of Trustees of the Vidyapeedom Trust and his lawyer in O. S. No. 71 of 2000 was installed as the Secretary and the Manager of the Vidyapeedom. 10. Facts as stated by the seventh respondent would indicate that with the assistance of the first respondent, the Secretary of Vidyapeedom, respondents 2 and 3 formed a parallel committee of Seva Sangham and passed a non confidence motion against the seventh respondent on 7,7.2002 and removed him and the Secretary and a new Committee with the third respondent as the President and second respondent as the Secretary was elected. The seventh respondent however maintained the stand that he was duly elected by the general body on 5.5.2000 for a period of three years and continues to be the President of the Committee of the Seva Sangham. Seventh respondent submitted that the documents and seals of the Ashramam were created and a meeting was unauthorisedly held on 7.7.2002 with oblique motive to wrest control of the Ashramam properties including the school. Seventh respondent and others maintained the stand that since they are the elected members the parallel meeting convened by the second and third respondents and others has no legal sanctity. Seventh respondent and another also approached the civil court by filing O. S. No 43 of 2002 before the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry for a declaration that the election notification dated 28.3.2002 is unauthorised. First respondent also filed counter claim for a declaration of their election and also for an order of temporary injunction restraining the seventh respondent herein and another from functioning as the office bearers of the Seva Sangham. No injunction has been granted. 11. Petitioner is not a party to that suit.
First respondent also filed counter claim for a declaration of their election and also for an order of temporary injunction restraining the seventh respondent herein and another from functioning as the office bearers of the Seva Sangham. No injunction has been granted. 11. Petitioner is not a party to that suit. Seventh respondent alleged that first respondent and others are attempting to take control of the Ashramam properties including the school. Secretary of the Committee headed by the seventh respondent had filed a complaint before the police against the misdeeds committed by the first respondent and others and F.I.R was registered against respondents 2, 3 and 4 which was referred and the seventh respondent is pursuing the matter. Seventh respondent also submitted that first respondent is an office bearer of a political party in power and is capable of influencing the police. Seventh respondent in the meantime convened a meeting on 7.12.2003 with police protection and passed a resolution to give protection to the petitioner so as to control the Ashramam properties and to discharge his functions as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashraman as per Ext. P1 trust deed. 12. Petitioner submits that he is the Sthriradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashraman and due to disputes between some of the members of the Seva Sangham he is not in a position to discharge his functions. Petitioner therefore submitted Ext. P5 petition before the fifth respondent to give adequate and effective police protection to his life and continued residence in the Ashramam and to function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. Since no action has been taken by respondents 5 and 6, petitioner has approached this court with the present writ petition. 13. We heard counsel for the petitioner Sri D. Sreekumar, counsel for the seventh respondent Sri E. S. M. Kabeer, counsel for respondents 2 and 3 Sri N.N. Sugunapalan and counsel for the first respondent Sri C.K. Abdul Rahim and the learned Government Pleader. We have also gone through the counter affidavits and reply affidavits filed by the parties. 14. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Vidya Peedom Trust" and "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham" have not been made parties to the writ petition.
We have also gone through the counter affidavits and reply affidavits filed by the parties. 14. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Vidya Peedom Trust" and "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham" have not been made parties to the writ petition. Further it is also stated that the petitioner had filed O. S. No 71 of 2002 before the Munsiff's Court, Kolenchery and that the seventh respondent herein has also filed O. S. No. 43 of 2002. Another suit, O. S. No. 30 of 2002 is also pending consideration. Further it was stated that the petitioner is not the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashramam and that the school and its properties now belong to the Vidyapeedom Trust and are governed by the provisions of the amended trust deed. Further they pointed out that the committee headed by the third respondent is in charge of administration of the Ashramam and that the Committee has got absolute right of administration regarding the affairs of the Ashramam. Further it is stated that as per the amended trust deed there is no post of Sthiradhyakshan for the administration of Seva Sangham. Further they also stated that Ext. P2 and P3 are not genuine documents and are fabricated by the petitioner. Further the Committee met on 15.10.2000 and he decided not to accommodate the petitioner any more as an inmate of the Ashramam. Further it is also stated that there is no disagreement between the Seva Sangham and the Vidyapeedom Trust. It is only with the intention of better development and upliftment of the school that such a trust was formed. Further it was also pointed out that seventh respondent was removed from the Managing Committee and he has subsequently collided with the petitioner and trying to take control of the Ashraman, school and other properties. Further it is also stated that none of the fundamental rights of the petitioner has been violated so as to claim police protection and that the rights if any of the petitioner could be established only through civil courts. It was also pointed out that the Seva Sangham has installed the fourth respondent as the Sanyasi who has no role in the administration of the Vidyapeedom trust. 15.
It was also pointed out that the Seva Sangham has installed the fourth respondent as the Sanyasi who has no role in the administration of the Vidyapeedom trust. 15. We have already indicated that rights of the parties in this case have to be judged on the basis of the terms of the registered trust deed. We have specifically asked counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 with regard to their source of power to oppose the claim of the petitioner. We have also examined the powers of the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 and 7th respondent on the basis of the registered trust deed. First respondent is styling himself as the Secretary of "Parama Bhattara Gurukula Vidyalaya" and admittedly not the Sthiradhyakshan or Madathipathy or member of the Committee of the Seva Sangham. He claims to be the Secretary and the Manager of the Parama Bhattara Vidya Peedom formation of which has not been approved by the Registrar of Societies. Third respondent claims to be the President of the parallel working Committee of the Seva Sangham and second respondent is the Secretary. Seventh respondent claim that he is the President of the Committee of the Seva Sangham governed by the registered trust deed. Contention was raised by the first respondent that Ext. P1 trust deed does not contain all the amendments brought in by the general body and that as per the amended trust deed there is no post of Sthiradhyakshan for the administration of the Seva Sangham for which first respondent produced Ext. R1(a). Ext. R1(a) has not been approved by the District Registrar of Societies. Registrar of Societies has issued Ext. P1 certified copy of the trust deed which would indicate as on 27.2.2004 the Registrar has not given his approval for the amendment and no legal rights enures to respondents 1 to 4. Resultantly parties are governed only by Ext. P1 trust deed. We have gone through the provisions of the trust deed meticulously. Founder of the trust has stipulated the powers of the Seva Sangham, the powers of the Committee as also the powers of Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. The trust deed categorically states that the Seva Sangham has no power to take away the powers and authority of the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy.
We have gone through the provisions of the trust deed meticulously. Founder of the trust has stipulated the powers of the Seva Sangham, the powers of the Committee as also the powers of Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. The trust deed categorically states that the Seva Sangham has no power to take away the powers and authority of the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan is the supreme authority of the Ashramam with powers vested in one person and he can continue as such for life. Once he is ordained he cannot be removed and Seva Sangham has no power to do so as per the terms of the trust deed. Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan is the supreme authority who has powers to overrule the decisions taken by the Committee would have legal sanctity only on approval by the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. Madathipthy and Sthiradhyakshan is the supreme head and the Seva Sangham cannot function without a Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. Respondents 1 to 3 unilaterally accepted fourth respondent as the Sanyasi by divesting the powers of Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy, a power which they cannot exercise on the basis of the provisions of the trust deed. The action taken by respondents 1 to 3 is mala fide and with oblique motive and patently contrary to the provisions of the trust deed. 16. We may now examine the claim of the petitioner as the Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan of the Ashraman. Petitioner claims to be the Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan on the basis of Ext. P3 issued by Kailasanatha Theertha Padar. Going by the terms of Ext. P3 dated 20.1.1996 it is evident that the petitioner was ordained as Madathipathy and Sthiradyakshan. Ext. P3 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under clause.27(b) of the trust deed. clause.27(b) stipulates that once a Sanyasi has been ordained as Sthiradhyakshan he could continue life long. Of late, for the purpose of this case, first respondent has produced a letter alleged to have been written by the previous Madathipathy Kailasanatha Theertha Padar stating that the petitioner was not ordained as the Sthiradhyakshan or Madathipathy of the ashramam a letter subsequently procured. Even Kailasanatha Theertha Padar has no case that he has been functioning as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy after the year 1995. Ext. R2(f) letter also does not deny the fact that the petitioner was put charge of the Ashramam.
Even Kailasanatha Theertha Padar has no case that he has been functioning as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy after the year 1995. Ext. R2(f) letter also does not deny the fact that the petitioner was put charge of the Ashramam. Going by the terms of the trust deed the Ashramam cannot function without the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy and the decision of the Committee will have legal sanctity only if it is approved by the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. Respondents 1 to 4 have no case that any other Sanyasi other than the petitioner has functioned as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy from 1995 onwards. Nobody has ever challenged the authority of the petitioner as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy from the 1996 onwards before any forum. Neither Kailasanatha Theertha Padar nor Abendananda Saraswathi Swamigal has questioned the authority of the petitioner all these years either before this court or before the civil court or any other forum. Prior to the petitioner taking charge as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy, Kailasananda Theertha Padar was the Madathipady and Sthiradhyakshan of the Ashramam and now the petitioner. Such a conclusion is irresistable in the facts and circumstances of this case 17. Petitioner has also made available original of the minutes book before court. We have persued the minutes book, Ext. P8 which would indicate that petitioner was functioning as the Madathipathy for the last many years. Petitioner also produced rewritten minutes book, Ext. R2(h) for the period from 6.1.2002 produced in O. S. No. 30 of 2002. On going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the original minutes book, Ext. P3 and. other amendment circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that petitioner is the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashramam and the amendments effected by persons like respondents 1 to 4 and others have no legal sanctity and goes contrary to the basic structure of the trust and would defeat the intention of its founder If that be so, petitioner as the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy has got the right to continue as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashramam and discharge the functions as such as per the terms of the trust deed. 18. We have already indicated, respondents have taken a contention that since petitioner had approached the civil court and two suits are pending, this writ petition cannot be entertained and relief be not granted.
18. We have already indicated, respondents have taken a contention that since petitioner had approached the civil court and two suits are pending, this writ petition cannot be entertained and relief be not granted. Counsel for the petitioner has correctly submitted that if relief is not granted in this writ petition, what the respondents wanted to achieve that is to drive the Stiradhyakshan and Madathipathy to civil litigation through illegal and deceitful means would be achieved. We have bestowed our serious attention to facts and circumstances of the case and we are convinced that serious injustice has been meted out to the petitioner. A writ court would not normally interfere with a genuine civil dispute, but when the dispute is not genuine and action of the respondent 1 to 4 is vitiated with oblique motive calculated to oust the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy through illegal and deceitful means there is a wanton and capricious abuse of legal rights, by persons having temporary or limited interest in the subject matter it would be a travesty of justice if we deny relief to the petitioners. Hence we have no hesitation to exercise our powers under Art.226 of the Constitution to enable the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy to discharge his functions in the Ashramam. 19. We shall also demonstrate that the pendency of the civil suits is of no consequence as far as the rights of the petitioner is concerned. First of all, O. S. No. 71 of 2000 was not prosecuted by the petitioner and there is no necessity of prosecuting the same now, since the seventh respondent who was a defendant therein has filed an affidavit stating that the Committee of the Seva Sangham has already decided that the petitioner should be allowed to function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashramam. In view of the stand taken by the seventh respondent who was the defendant in the suit, there is no necessity for pursuing the suit O. S. No. 71 of 2000 further which stands dismissed for default. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that was the reason why the petitioner has not mentioned about the suit which was dismissed for default. 20.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that was the reason why the petitioner has not mentioned about the suit which was dismissed for default. 20. O. S. No. 43 of 2002 is a suit instituted by Parama Bhattara Gurukul Seva Sangham and its President, seventh respondent herein , against third respondent and others, a dispute between the members of the Sangham in which petitioner is not a party. Petitioner is not concerned with the dispute. Further the trust deed empowers the petitioner to dissolve the committee if he is satisfied that they are acting against the interests of the Ashraman. Another suit stated to be pending is the suit, O. S. No. 30 of 2002 which was instituted by G. Parameswaran Nair, a founder member of the Ashramam before the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry against constitution of Parama Bhattara Gurukula Vidyapeedom Trust and the decision taken to divest the powers of the Sthiradhyakshan and vesting it in the President, for which the approval of the Registrar has not been obtained. Pendency of that suit is of no consequence so far as the petitioner is concerned and that he is not a party to that suit. 21. Petitioner continues as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy, which has not been questioned by anybody before any civil court either by Kailasananda Theertha Padar or Abedananda Saraswathi Swamigal or any of the disciples of Chattambi Swami Thiruvadikal and hence the petitioner is entitled to discharge his duties as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy a post which is irrecoverable as per the terms of the registered trust deed and that is the wish of the founder of the Trust. Facts would evidently show that the attempt of respondents 1 to 4 is to take away the control of the Ashramam and its properties and the school from the petitioner and to vest in a newly created Trust controlled by the first respondent, a lawyer who appeared for the seventh respondent in O. S. No. 71 of 2000. Petitioner also produced Ext. P13 affidavit filed by the President Secretary stating that the first respondent has acted mala fide and fraud has been practised on them. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to say that petitioner has denied his powers as Stiradhyakshan and Madathipathy through illegal means with oblique motive unauthorisedly and without the sanction of the provisions of the trust deed. 22.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to say that petitioner has denied his powers as Stiradhyakshan and Madathipathy through illegal means with oblique motive unauthorisedly and without the sanction of the provisions of the trust deed. 22. Petitioner has made the district Superintendent of Police and Circle Inspector of Police as respondents 5 to 6. They have not filed any counter affidavit disputing the various averments made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavits filed in this case. Petitioner has narrated in detail the atrocities caused by some of the members of the Seva Sangham and the members of the School Committee in the matter of the functioning of the Ashramam as well as the petitioner discharging his function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy. Petitioner has stated that he was attacked on 19.11.2000 by the seventh respondent and his supporters and he was admitted in the General Hospital, Ernakulam. Police had registered a crime at that time. Petitioner apprehended threat to his life and to the Ashramam properties but no effective police protection was given to the petitioner though he had made repeated requests. After discharge from the hospital he went on pilgrimage to Himalayas and came back. Further petitioner has also stated that Vasudevan Pillai, Secretary of the Committee headed by the 7th respondent has filed a complaint against respondents 1 to 3 who have trespassed into the Ashramam properties. The complaint was lodged with the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry and as per the order of the court Crime No. 345 of 2003 under S.120B, 379, 427 IPC was filed on the basis of the police report. In the affidavit filed by Vasudevan Pillai, Secretary of the Seva Sangham of which the seventh respondent is the President it is stated that because of political influence of the first respondent police is totally inactive in giving protection either to the petitioner or to the Committee headed by the seventh respondent. Further it is also stated that the Committee headed by the seventh respondent has recognised the petitioner as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy and they have given all support to the petitioner. Ext. P11 certificate issued by the Registrar of the Society would also show that 7th respondent is duly elected President of the Committee for the year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and that meeting was duly convened on 7.12.2003. 23.
Ext. P11 certificate issued by the Registrar of the Society would also show that 7th respondent is duly elected President of the Committee for the year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and that meeting was duly convened on 7.12.2003. 23. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the trust deed petitioner has got the authority to continue as Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan even without any support from any of the Seva Sangham members since the petitioner is the supreme head and can even do away with the committee. 24. Petitioner again made request to police by Ext. P5 dated 25.05.2004 for the police help so as to function as Madathipathy and Sthiradhyakshan of the Ashramam. Since no action has been taken by the police petitioner has approached this court. We have already stated that respondents 5 and 6 have not filed any counter affidavit traversing the averments made by the petitioner either in the writ petition or in the reply affidavits. 25. We may point out that State and the police officials have got a legal obligation to give protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to discharge the function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy without any obstruction. Petitioner has fundamental right to live in the Ashramam and discharge his functions as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy without any obstruction from any quarters but it is being interfered with which would affect his right guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India Right to life and property is dear and fundamental to a citizen and if sought to be deprived through illegal means the State and its machinery have a prime duty to thwart such illegal acts. By doing so they are not resolving any civil dispute, but safeguarding the life, liberty and property of a citizen. Petitioner's right under Art.26 has also to be safeguarded and has the fundamental right to maintain the Ashramam established for the Sanyasis. Requests were made for police protection before respondents 5 and 6. On facts we are convinced that attempt have been made to take away the control and administration of the Ashramam and its properties from the petitioners against the provisions of the trust deed and to drive the petitioner to the corridors of civil court, criminal court and the writ court.
On facts we are convinced that attempt have been made to take away the control and administration of the Ashramam and its properties from the petitioners against the provisions of the trust deed and to drive the petitioner to the corridors of civil court, criminal court and the writ court. In fact the trust deed itself states that in no circumstances the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy be driven to court as far as the Ashramam is concerned. Respondents 5 and 6 have not given adequate and effective police protection in spite of repeated requests which only paved the way of the contesting respondents and others to take law into their hands and act contrary to the terms of the trust deed. Such being the conduct of the respondents, their assertion that Ext. 3 is fabricated by the petitioner cannot be believed. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case, and on going through the materials placed before us, we are inclined to accept the averment made by the petitioner that he is the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Ashramam. 26. We have therefore no hesitation to allow this writ petition giving direction to respondents 5 and 6 to give adequate and effective police protection to safeguard the interest of the petitioner being the Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy of the Vadayampadi Ashramam. Petitioner be given effective police protection so as to discharge the function as Sthiradhyakshan and Madathipathy as per Ext. P1 trust deed and for his peaceful residence in the Ashramam. Writ petition is allowed as above.