Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 917 (KER)

Subramanian v. State of Kerala

2017-06-21

A.M.BABU, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2017
JUDGMENT : P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. Common order passed by the District Collector, Thrissur under Section 28 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) enabling the respondent Devaswom to take possession of their properties/shop rooms which were being occupied by the petitioner licensees, on termination of the license, is the subject matter of challenge in all these writ petitions. In the three writ petitions, except W.P.(C) 29293 of 2016, constitutional validity of Section 28 of the above Act is also under challenge. 2. The arguments were led by Shri N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.27257 of 2016, who was supported by the learned counsel for the petitioners in other cases. 3. The version of the Devaswom was advanced by Shri Gopal, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom. We heard Shri T.K. Ananthakrishnan, the learned Government Pleader as well, who appeared for the State/Departmental authorities. Since nature of the grievance and contentions taken are almost similar, W.P.(C)No.27257 of 2016 is taken as the lead case and reference is made to parties and proceedings as given therein, except where it is separately referred to. 4. The Administration/Management of the Guruvayoor Sree Krishna Temple is vested with the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee constituted under the relevant provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and it is being done subject to the provisions of the Act/Rules. The worship protocol in the Temple is said to have been prescribed by Adi Sankaracharya, a great Hindu saint. Pilgrims from different parts of the country and even from across the Borders come to worship the deity. According to the Devaswom, on an average, ‘30000’ pilgrims visit the temple every day, which go even upto ‘one lakh’ on special occasions like Guruvaryoor Ekadasi, and also during Mandalam-Makaravilakku season. 5. Because of the inadequacies in setting up the infrastructure and amenities to the pilgrims in the premises , land was acquired around the Temple, to an extent of nearly 100 metres and as per the verdict passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16494 of 2004, no permanent construction is possible within 100 metres from the compound wall of the Temple. Because of the inadequacies in setting up the infrastructure and amenities to the pilgrims in the premises , land was acquired around the Temple, to an extent of nearly 100 metres and as per the verdict passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16494 of 2004, no permanent construction is possible within 100 metres from the compound wall of the Temple. Large number of pilgrims coming to the Temple find it extremely difficult to have ‘darshan’, because of heavy rush and they may have to wait even upto 7 or 8 hours, standing in the queue, virtually finding it difficult even to answer the calls of nature . Parking of vehicles was also a perennial problem. It was considering all these aspects, that the Managing Committee of the Devaswom passed a resolution on 06.12.2013 to construct a ‘Queue Complex’ and Multi-level parking system, utilising the funds of the Devaswom to the requisite extent. It is stated that the Devaswom has obtained clearance from the Government as per G.O.(Rt)No.2523/2015/LSGD dated 13.08.2015. In the proposal, some violations of the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 were pointed out by the Chief Town Planner; but considering the fact that the roads on the eastern, northern and western sides belonged to the Temple, power under Rule 3C of the Rules, was invoked by the Government and sanction was given as per Government Order dated 13.08.2015; simultaneously giving necessary instructions to the Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram and Secretary, Guruvayoor Municipality to issue necessary orders for the construction. 6. On considering the premises where the Queue complex and the Multi level car parking system were to be constructed, it was found that the ‘Old Sathram Complex’ situated on the East Nada of Guruvayoor Temple , which was having a total extent of about 3.5 acres, was found as most suitable one. It is situated 180 Metres away from the eastern compound wall of the Temple, 300 metres away from the Bus stand and 750 metres away from the Railway station. The ‘Sathram Complex’ situated therein is stated as virtually dilapidated and quite unsafe. It was in the said circumstance, that notice was issued to the 30 occupants of the shop rooms (20 shop rooms and 10 bunks) to effect vacant surrender, particularly since the term of the license had already expired. The ‘Sathram Complex’ situated therein is stated as virtually dilapidated and quite unsafe. It was in the said circumstance, that notice was issued to the 30 occupants of the shop rooms (20 shop rooms and 10 bunks) to effect vacant surrender, particularly since the term of the license had already expired. On issuance of notice, the petitioners/occupants sought to challenge the proceedings by various means, also conducting ‘Dharna’ and such other measures. They had even approached the Civil Court, seeking for permanent prohibitory injunction. The interlocutory application for interim injunction was rejected, holding that the suit was premature in terms of Section 28 of the Act. This was sought to be challenged by filing different FAOs, wherein a common verdict was passed by a learned Judge of this Court as per Ext.P2, holding that the right to approach the Court under Section 28(5) was only against the order passed by the District Collector under Section 28 of the Act, which was still to happen, as proceedings were still pending before the District Collector (instituted by the Administrator of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. It was also observed that, suits were not maintainable before the District Court and that the suit, if at all any, to be filed under Section 28(5) of the Act was to be instituted before the Munsiff’s Court; in view of the law declared in Padmini v. Guruvayoor Devaswom and others 2016 (1) KHC 29 ) and further, suchsuit could be instituted only if the title was disputed. It was further observed that, if there was any threat of eviction otherwise than under due process of law, it was open for the party to move the Civil Court concerned. It was accordingly, that all the appeals were dismissed as per Ext.P2. As mentioned above, despite the notice issued by the Devaswom to effect vacant surrender, none of the petitioners acceded to the same, which made the Devaswom to prefer Ext.P3 series applications before the District Collector under Section 28 of the Act in the prescribed Form (Form 1). A detailed statement of objections were filed from the part of the occupants, as borne by Ext.P6. In view of the hardship due to delay, the Devaswom approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.19306 of 2016, referring to the facts and figures and seeking for a direction to have the proceedings finalised by the District Collector. A detailed statement of objections were filed from the part of the occupants, as borne by Ext.P6. In view of the hardship due to delay, the Devaswom approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.19306 of 2016, referring to the facts and figures and seeking for a direction to have the proceedings finalised by the District Collector. The said prayer was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment on 08.02.2016, whereby the District Collector, Thrissur was directed to expedite the proceedings as sought for, in accordance with law and final orders were directed to be passed within ‘one month’, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 7. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, notice was issued to both the sides by the District Collector. The specific contention raised by the petitioners before the District Collector was that, they were tenants under the Devaswom and were liable to be governed by the relevant provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965; asserting that they were never ‘licensees’ as alleged by the Devaswom. It was also pointed out that Section 28 could not have been invoked in their case, being not encroachers, but persons having permissive occupation. The merit of the case projected by the Guruvayoor Devaswom as to the construction of ‘Queue complex’ and ‘Multi level parking system’ was also disputed. 8. Considering the rival contentions, ‘five’ different issues were framed by the District Collector and they were answered based on the materials on record. It was accordingly, that Ext.P11 order was passed on 07.08.2016 holding that petitioners/occupants were only ‘licensees’ and not tenants and that Devaswom was entitled to get back the Shop rooms/Bunks; making it clear that the Devaswom will be free to get it executed, if the occupants were not moving out from the shop rooms and bunks voluntarily within three days from the date of the order. The above order is under challenge in all these writ petitions. 9. It is also pointed out that construction of the ‘Queue Complex’ and ‘Multi level parking System’ has been intercepted by the Government as per Ext.P12 order issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner till finalisation of the ‘Master plan’. When the matter came up for admission on 17.08.2016, it was ordered that in the light of Ext.P12, let no eviction be effected in terms of Ext.P11, for the time being. When the matter came up for admission on 17.08.2016, it was ordered that in the light of Ext.P12, let no eviction be effected in terms of Ext.P11, for the time being. The matter was adjourned for getting instructions from the respondents concerned. There were several postings thereafter and the interim order was being extended from time to time. The other writ petitions, which came to be filed subsequently were also ordered to be listed along with the lead case and they were being posted accordingly. 10. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent/State pointing out that the Government was working out a comprehensive ‘Master plan’ for the development of Guruvayoor, in similar lines of Master Plan for Sabarimala, which would cover not only the Temple but also the entire Township of Guruvayoor. 11. The 4th respondent /Chairman of the Guruvayoor Devaswom has filed a counter affidavit dated 15.03.2017, producing copies of various documents as Exts.R4(a) to R4(h) in support of their stand as to the course and events and seeking to rebut the contentions in the writ petitions besides the stand of the Government/departmental authorities-who were stated as virtually dancing to the tune of the Merchants’ Association contrary to the interest of the Devaswom. Requirement of the ‘Queue Complex’ as a necessity to the devotees waiting in the queue for hours to have Darshan and the duty of the Devaswom Managing Committee to provide all facilities to the devotees coming to the Temple have also been highlighted therein. It is also pointed out that, though some understanding was arrived at as to the process of eviction vide Ext.P1 Minutes of the meeting convened by the Chief Minister of the State, the occupants did not act as assured therein (in terms of Ext.P1) as borne by Ext.R4(c). On receipt of the said communication (i.e. Ext.R4(c)), the Secretary of the Government, Department of Revenue, vide Ext.R4(d) e-mail reply dated 26.09.2015 informed the Devaswom that they could evict the occupants legally, if the occupants had not honoured the undertaking given. It is further pointed out that, there is no ‘Master plan’ in so far as the Guruvaryoor Devaswom is concerned and that the ‘Master plan of the Guruvayoor Municipality’ has no connection with the Guruvayoor Devaswom; adding that implementation of the project of the Devaswom cannot be linked with the Master plan of the Guruvayoor Municipality. It is further pointed out that, there is no ‘Master plan’ in so far as the Guruvaryoor Devaswom is concerned and that the ‘Master plan of the Guruvayoor Municipality’ has no connection with the Guruvayoor Devaswom; adding that implementation of the project of the Devaswom cannot be linked with the Master plan of the Guruvayoor Municipality. Ext.R4(g) Resolution was passed accordingly, on 16.08.2016, in response to Ext.P12 letter of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner and necessary communication was instructed to be prepared and forwarded to the Government in this regard. 12. In response to the allegation of bias raised against the District Collector, it has been pointed out in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit that, it is not factually correct and that no such allegation was ever raised in Ext.P6 Statement of Objection filed before the District Collector or even at the time of hearing (with reference to the fact that the District Collector was the Administrator of Guruvayoor Devaswom earlier). Factual aspects are also sought to be controverted in the said affidavit, pointing out that the petitioners herein were the petitioners before this Court in the earlier round of litigation, particularly in DBA 105 of 2005 and connected matters; where the challenge raised was against ‘increase of license fee’ by the Devaswom for the shops occupied by the petitioners/licensees. Ext.R4(a) common verdict was passed in those cases by a Division Bench of this Court and a specific finding was rendered in paragraph 5 that possession of the shop rooms was only on the basis of ‘license agreements’ and that the occupants did not have any permanent right to continue in possession; in turn declining interference and dismissing the DBAs; however granting one month’s time to satisfy the arrears of increased license fee and to execute fresh agreements. Ext.R4(b) is one such agreement dated 26.04.2013. 13. On filing a reply affidavit dated 23.03.2017 by the petitioners, pointing out that Queue Complex was originally intended to be constructed in the ‘South Nada’, whereas it is now proposed to be constructed in the ‘East Nada’ and such other aspects; an additional counter affidavit dated 30.03.2017 has been filed along with I.A.No.5802 of 2017 seeking to accept the same. On filing a reply affidavit dated 23.03.2017 by the petitioners, pointing out that Queue Complex was originally intended to be constructed in the ‘South Nada’, whereas it is now proposed to be constructed in the ‘East Nada’ and such other aspects; an additional counter affidavit dated 30.03.2017 has been filed along with I.A.No.5802 of 2017 seeking to accept the same. The authority of the 4th respondent, who filed the affidavit on behalf of the Devaswom, which is questioned by the petitioners in their reply affidavit, has been sought to be answered therein explaining the circumstances. The reason, why the petitioners cannot be rehabilitated at this point of time has also been reiterated with reference to the contents in the counter affidavit already filed. I.A.No.5841 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioners producing Exts.P13 and P14 as additional documents (proceedings of the Guruvayoor Municipality and communication from the Devaswom to the Municipality). An additional counter affidavit dated 05.04.2017 has been filed by the 4th respondent along with I.A.No.6221 of 2017 seeking to accept the same. It has been asserted therein, that the petitioners and other licensees are occupying the shop rooms in the TC block, East block and bunks situated in the Sathram compound unauthorisedly and that they have obstructed the Devaswom from evicting them, which is illegally being supported by the first respondent, merely based on the representation submitted by the Merchants’ Association and ignoring the rights of the Devaswom and welfare/well-being of the pilgrims. It is also pointed out that the first respondent is trying to mix up the construction of the Queue Complex and Multi level car parking System by the Devaswom, with the ‘Prasadam Scheme’ launched by the Department of Cultural and Tourism, Govt. of India. The Central Government has identified the Guruvayoor Temple, to be included under the ‘Prasadam Scheme’. The project ‘Prasadam Scheme’ envisages only: (i) Beautification of walkway from Manjulaal to East Nada; (ii) Development of inner ring roads; (iii) Development of approach area from West Nada and KSRTC junction (iv) construction of Annadanam hall; and (v) Development of parking of heavy vehicles . A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the authorities held on14.12.2016 and a true copy of the resolution No.110 of theManaging Committee of the Devaswom held on 19.12.2016 havebeen produced as Exts.R4(j) and (k). A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the authorities held on14.12.2016 and a true copy of the resolution No.110 of theManaging Committee of the Devaswom held on 19.12.2016 havebeen produced as Exts.R4(j) and (k). With regard to the opinionexpressed by the first respondent to have the Queue Complex constructed at ‘Thekke Nada’, it is stated as not feasible, for thereason already stated in the counter affidavit. The other suggestion regarding utilisation of ‘Vaijayanthi building’ is also stated as not feasible because of the specific reason given in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit. It is stated that construction of the Multi level car parking System is not included under the ‘Prasadam Scheme’ and that there is no over lapping in this regard. 14. After hearing both the sides, this Court is of the view that the main point to be considered is not with reference to the Scheme under which construction is to be made for providing amenities to the pilgrims or the quantum of expenditure, but the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P11 order passed by the District Collector under Section 28 of the Act. Vires of the said provision (Section 28) also forms a matter of consideration, in view of the challenge raised in this regard and nothing else. Going by the pleadings and proceedings, inadequacy of sufficient facilities/infrastructure and scarcity of space and amenities, with regard to the large number of pilgrims visiting the Temple every day is not a matter of dispute. By virtue of the specific provisions in the Act, it is the duty of the Managing Committee of the Devaswam to meet the needs of the Pilgrims, at least, to a minimum level, particularly considering the hardships in standing in the Queue for Darshan for hours together, without any means to rest/sit or to have the facility of drinking water or to answer the calls of nature, as the case may be. 15. Multi level car parking complex is not an alien concept especially when there is space constraint in modern times; and necessary infrastructure has to be provided utilising the best feasible/suitable means in this regard. 15. Multi level car parking complex is not an alien concept especially when there is space constraint in modern times; and necessary infrastructure has to be provided utilising the best feasible/suitable means in this regard. This being the position, as pointed out by the Devaswom, even though land acquisition has been made to an extent of 100 metres around the Temple, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court on 11.06.2016 in W.P. (C)No.16494 of 2004, no permanent construction is possiblewithin a radius of 100 metres from the compound wall of the Temple. The Devaswom has identified the ‘Sathram Complex’, having an area of about 3.5 acres at East Nada as the best available space, feasible and suitable for construction of the Queue complex/Multi level car parking complex. Since the Devaswom is the master of the affairs to evaluate the ‘plus’ and ‘minus’ points in this regard, this Court finds nothing wrong with regard to identification of the spot/premises for effecting the construction. Since the requirement is substantiated, the necessity pointed out by the Devaswom to evict the occupants of the Shop rooms/Bunks in the Sathram Complex is a genuine one, which accordingly has been correctly held by the District Collector, vide Ext.P11 order. 16. As mentioned already, taking note of the rival contentions, ‘five’ different issues were raised by the District Collector while dealing with the applications preferred under Section 28 of the Act which are in the following terms : “(1) Whether the District Collector has jurisdiction to decide the requisition presented by the Guruvayoor Devaswom as per Section 28 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act? (2) Whether the respondents are tenants coming under the purview of the Rent Control Act of Kerala ? (3) Whether the respondents dispute the title of the Devaswom and claim title ? (4) Whether notice under section 106 TP Act is necessary before initiating proceedings in the process of taking possession of the Shop rooms and Bunks by the Devaswom ? (5) Whether the respondents are entitled to legally continue to use the shop rooms and Bunks entrusted to them by the Guruvayoor Devaswom ?” 17. With regard to the crucial question whether the occupants were licensees or tenants coming within the purview of Rent Control Act, it is seen that the original licence agreements were produced from the part of the Devaswom, besides the supporting registers. With regard to the crucial question whether the occupants were licensees or tenants coming within the purview of Rent Control Act, it is seen that the original licence agreements were produced from the part of the Devaswom, besides the supporting registers. It is to be noted that the occupants had never contended that they were not signatories to the said agreements or that signature in the agreements did not belong to them, but for the contention that it was not a ‘licensee-licensor’ relationship, but a ‘tenant-landlord’ relationship. It is to be noted that the occupants had never contended that they were not signatories to the said agreements or that signature in the agreements did not belong to them, but for the contention that it was not a ‘licensee-licensor’ relationship, but a ‘tenant-landlord’ relationship. While examining this question, the District Collector has made a reference to the various clauses in the agreement as noted below; - in paragraph/clause 1 of the agreement - referring to the nature of agreement as licence; and describing the parties as licensor-licensee respectively, besides stipulating the purpose of entrustment for running the shop room only as a licensee and on payment of licence fee; - in paragraph/clause 2 - referring to the use shop and the bunk as licensee alone; - in paragraph/clause 3 - stating that it is a licence agreement not as a lease agreement and not considered or intended as a lease agreement; - in paragraph/clause 4 - stipulating the tenure of the agreement; - in paragraph/clause 5 - stipulating the monthly licence fee and the mode of payment; - in paragraph/clause 6 - stipulating the default clause/penal clause in case of failure to remit licence fee on the date specified; - in paragraph/clause 7 - liability to satisfy electricity/water charges besides fee for usage of the shop room/bunk; - in paragraph/clause 8 - requirement to execute new licence agreement with new rate of licence fee, in case the tenure of the period of licence is extended; - in paragraph/clause 15 - prohibiting transfer of licence for the usage of others; - in paragraph/clause 21 - as to the right of the Devaswom to cancel or revoke licence, if any, in terms/conditions of the agreement found violated; - in paragraph/clause 22 - as to the eligibility of the occupant to receive back security deposit after the licence period or as to the right to get security deposit appropriated if the period of licence is extended by executing new licence agreement; - in paragraph/clause 23 - right of the occupant to terminate the licence agreement by issuing 3 months advance notice; - in paragraphs/clauses 25,26,27 - as to the right of the Devaswom to take possession of the building/shoproom/bunk with 7 days prior notice terminating the licence agreement, if it is required for safety purpose, development of the Devaswom or for the convenience and amenities of the devotees and pilgrims; - in paragraph 29 - stating that the relationship between the Devaswom and occupants will be that of the licensor and licensee. 18. It is based on the above categoric provisions in the agreement that a clear finding was rendered that the occupants were only ‘licensees’ and never tenants, in turn finding the issue in favour of the Devaswom. That apart, as mentioned already, in the earlier round of litigation, some of the petitioners herein along with others had approached this Court challenging the enhancement of the “licence fee” and all these cases were considered together and finalized by this Court as per Ext. R4(a) judgment dated 04.01.2006, clearly holding in paragraph 5 that the occupation was only on the basis of the licence agreement and that they do not have any permanent right to continue in possession as the agreement was only one that of a license. In the said circumstances, the finding rendered by the District Collector in Ext. P11 is perfectly on the basis of the materials on record and it warrants no interference. 19. It is seen that the petitioners had raised a contention as to whether notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act was necessary before initiation of the proceedings in the process of taking possession of the shop rooms and bunks by the Devaswom. As noted by the District Collector in paragraph 19 of Ext. P11 Order, the said contention was not pressed during the hearing held before the District Collector. No contention is raised in the Writ Petition to the contrary, as to the factual position in this regard. As noted by the District Collector in paragraph 18 of Ext. P11, there is no dispute as to the ‘title’ over the property in question (shop rooms/bunks), but for the contention that the petitioners were occupying the premises as a tenant and not as a licensee. In so far as there is no dispute with regard to the ‘title’, no suit is maintainable before the Civil Court challenging the order passed by the District Collector under Section 28 of the Act. 20. There is a contention that Section 28 ought not have been invoked, which according to the petitioner is applicable only in the case of encroachment and that they are under permissive occupation. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition. The occupation was based on various licence agreements executed in between, as borne by Ext. P3. The tenure is admittedly over. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition. The occupation was based on various licence agreements executed in between, as borne by Ext. P3. The tenure is admittedly over. Because of the pressing needs of the Devaswom, for increasing the facilities to be provided to the piligrims, by constructing a Queue complex and a Multi level car parking system, the licence has been terminated and notice has been issued. In so far as a finding has been arrived at that the petitioners are continuing as licensees and not as tenants and once licence is put an end to, serving notice to effect vacant surrender within the stipulated time, continuance in the premises beyond such time becomes unauthorised. The petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the premises, the licence having come to an end and the Devaswom is having every right to get back its properties, which can be achieved by invoking the power and procedure under Section 28 of the Act. 21. Section 28 of the Act reads as follows : “Section : 28 - Committee to be in possession of Devaswom properties : (1) The Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties including jewelleries, records, documents and other assets belonging to the Devaswom. (2) If in obtaining such possession, the Committee or any person authorized in this behalf by the Committee, or the Administrator is resisted or obstructed by any one, the Committee or the Administrator, as the case may be, may make a requisition in the prescribed form to the Collector of the district in which any such property is situate to deliver possession thereof to the Committee or the Administrator, as the case may be. (3) Where a requisition is made to the Collector under sub section (2), the Collector shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, shall comply with the said requisition, and in exercising the powers under this section, the Collector may use such force as may be necessary. (4) Every person authorized by the Committee or acting under its instructions in pursuance of this section or the Administrator shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860). (4) Every person authorized by the Committee or acting under its instructions in pursuance of this section or the Administrator shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860). (5) Nothing contained in this section shall bar the institution of a suit by any person aggrieved by an order made thereunder for establishing his title to the property.” There is no infringement of any of the procedural formalities incomplying with the requirements of Section 28. Opportunity has been given to the petitioners/occupants, who have filed Ext. P6 objections. Relevant documents have been produced, particularly, the original license agreements and supporting registers by the Devaswom. It is based on the facts and figures revealed therefrom, that Ext.P11 order was passed by the District Collector. As such, invocation of the power under Section 28 of the Act is well within the four walls of law. 22. Coming to the constitutional validity of Section 28 of the Act, as raised in three writ petitions (except W.P.(C) No. 29213 of 2016), The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 was enacted by the State Government for proper administrative control and management of the Guruvayoor Devaswom and its properties and for re-organizing the Scheme of management for affairs of the Devaswom. Legislation is by virtue of Entry 28 in the Concurrent list (List III of the 7th schedule to the Constitution of India) and same has obtained assent of the President on 18.03.1978. In fact, the Act was under challenge before this Court, particularly, with reference to Sections 3, 4, 5 (3), 6, 14, 18, 29, 32, 33 and 35. After a threadbare analysis of the relevant aspects, this Court, as per the decision reported in 1985 KLT 629 (Narayanan Namboodiri & Others V. State of Kerala and Others) made interference only on some limited aspects as given in paragraph 32 of the said verdict, which is extracted below : “32. The results of the foregoing discussion are as follows : (a) Clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of S.4 relating to nomination of members to the Committee by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers will be interpreted as “Hindus among the Council of Ministers having faith in temple worship”. b) S. 32 of the Act is declared as unconstitutional and void. b) S. 32 of the Act is declared as unconstitutional and void. c) S.33 will be read omitting the words “or is not in the interest of the Devaswom”. d) Sub-section (2) of S.35 will be read as proviso to sub Section (1) and the decision of the Thanthri of the temple on religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters will be final only as against the authorities mentioned in sub section (1) of S.35; and (e) The remaining provisions of the Act are valid and are perfectly within the competence of the State Legislature.” From the above, it is clear that the Act was held as valid in all other respects, though validity of Section 28 was not separately mentioned. While raising a challenge against Section 28, thepetitioners herein have not substantiated as to the legislative incompetency, if any, in having incorporated/enacted said provision in the Statute. The relevant aspects to be noted with reference to the legislative competence have explained in Ismayil v. Deputy Tahsildar ( 2011 2 KLT 322 ) and in Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010) 5 SCC 246); which are not satisfied to support the prayer raised by the petitioners. 23. Incidentally, it is to be noted that Section 28 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act is almost identical to Section 33 of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, which is reproduced below : “33. (1) The Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties including the Ratna Bhandar and funds and jewelleries, records, documents and other assets belonging to Temple. (2) If in obtaining such possession, the Committee or any person authorised in this behalf by the Committee is resisted or obstructed by any one, it may make a requisition in the prescribed form to any Magistrate of the first class within whose jurisdiction any such property is situated to deliver its possession to the Committee; on receipt of the requisition the Magistrate shall hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, shall comply with the said requisition, and in exercising the powers under this Section the Magistrate shall be guided byt eh rules made under this Act. (3) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Committee or any person acting under its instruction or authorised by it for anything done in good faith under Sub-section (2). (4) Omitted. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall bar the institution of a suit by any person aggrieved by an order made there under from establishing his title to the said property.” Constitutional validity of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 had come up for consideration of the Apex Court and as per the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1501 (Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa), it was held that the Act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. Viewed in the above circumstances, this Court finds that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the provision is not substantiated and hence it stands repelled. The next question is with regard to the alleged bias on the part of the District Collector. The contention is that he was holding office of the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom. In response to the denial of the allegation by the 4th respondent, it has been stated by the petitioners in their reply affidavit that it is not for the 4th respondent to deny the same but for the District Collector. But the fact remains that, if any allegation of bias is raised against anybody, it is settled law that the person concerned has to be impleaded in the personal capacity which has not been done by the petitioners in any of these cases. As such, it does not deserve any consideration. That apart, no such objection was ever raised by the petitioners in Ext. P6 statement of objections, and it is being raised for the first time before this Court, which is not permissible in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Lalu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand (2013) 8 SCC 593 ). 25. There is a contention for the petitioners that no counter affidavit has been filed by the Administrator of the Devaswom and it not for the 4th respondent to file affidavit on behalf of the Devaswom. The circumstance under which the affidavits have been filed by the 4th respondent has been explained by the said respondent in the counter affidavit. Admittedly, 4th respondent is the Chairman of the Devaswom. The circumstance under which the affidavits have been filed by the 4th respondent has been explained by the said respondent in the counter affidavit. Admittedly, 4th respondent is the Chairman of the Devaswom. It is stated that as per the resolution No 110 dated 19.12.2016, the Devaswom Board has authorised the Chairman to file necessary proceedings. That apart, the petitioners themselves have impleaded the 4th respondent in the party array (not in personal capacity, but in the official capacity). After having impleaded him, it is not open for the petitioner to take a ‘U turn’ and say that the Chairman of the Devaswom Board cannot file any affidavit as to the facts and figures. In all the affidavits, it has been stated by the 4th respondent (in the opening paragraph) that he has filed affidavit based on the contents of the relevant file. As such, this Court does not find any reason to reject it and they are accepted to the extent as discussed above. 26. With regard to the authority of the Devaswom Commissioner to have issued Ext. P12, it is to be noted that the Gurvayoor Devaswom Act is a self contained code and the administration, control and management of the affairs of the Devaswom stand vested with the Managing Committee and not on the Government. Similarly, involvement and the powers of the Government under the Gurvaryoor Devaswom Act are mainly under two circumstances, i.e. to dissolve and supersede the Managing Committee in terms of Section 6 and call for the records and pass orders on the decision of the Managing Committee of the Devaswom, if it is in violation of Act or not in the interest of Devaswom as stipulated under Section 33. This being the position, it not for the Government or Commissioner to dictate terms to the Devaswom as to the course to be pursued with regard to the construction of the Queue complex or Multilevel car parking complex for increasing the facilities/amenities to the large number of pilgrims coming to have a ‘Darshan’ in the Temple. This being the position, it not for the Government or Commissioner to dictate terms to the Devaswom as to the course to be pursued with regard to the construction of the Queue complex or Multilevel car parking complex for increasing the facilities/amenities to the large number of pilgrims coming to have a ‘Darshan’ in the Temple. The interference made by the first respondent State/2nd respondent Commissioner and pleadings raised before this Court on behalf of the first respondent to the extent it protracts eviction of the petitioners/occupants can never be considered as in the best interest of the Devaswom or pilgrims, but in support of the commercial interest expressed by the vendors/occupants of the shop rooms and the Merchant’s Association representing them. This Court is of the firm view that the State Government cannot interfere with the administration/control/management of the Devaswom and its properties, except to the extent as permitted under the relevant provisions of the Statute. As such, Ext. P12 is of no consequence as to the further steps to be pursued based on Ext. P11 order passed by the District Collector in terms of Section 28 of the Act. 27. This Court finds that the project has been delayed already as the resolution to have the construction was taken by the Devaswom about 2 years back (in the year 2015). The petitioners were successful in protracting things, with the involvement of the Government, to promote their vested commercial interest. Nobody was much anxious enough to see the urgent need to provide necessary infrastructure by making appropriate arrangements in aid of the pilgrims, who are to stand in the long queue for hours, to have the ‘Darshan’. That apart, cost of construction also might have gone up by this time. This Court does not intend to say anything whether it could have been constructed by the Devaswom without getting all the clearances and such other requirements. But as the first step, eviction has to be done at the earliest. The unauthorized occupants cannot be permitted to continue in occupation until the environmental clearance or such other clearance is obtained. If such a view is taken, it may be possible for the petitioners, by appropriate means or designs of their own, to cause non-issuance of clearance or delayed granting of permit for construction. The unauthorized occupants cannot be permitted to continue in occupation until the environmental clearance or such other clearance is obtained. If such a view is taken, it may be possible for the petitioners, by appropriate means or designs of their own, to cause non-issuance of clearance or delayed granting of permit for construction. This Court does not intend to make any further observation in this regard, but for holding that the petitioners do not have any right to continue the occupation after termination of the licence and vacant surrender has to be effected forthwith. 28. This Court holds that Ext. P11 order passed by the District Collector is perfectly within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstances. It is open for the Devaswom Board to get Ext. P11 executed forthwith. However, taking note of all the facts and circumstances, some breathing time can be given to remove the materials by the petitioners themselves and this Court grants two weeks’ time in this regard. If vacant surrender is not effected within such time, the respondent Devaswom will be free to pursue execution proceeding even by getting assistance of the police by contacting the District Police Chief of the officers under him who shall give effect to the verdict passed by this Court; abating the threat to the law and order situation, if any. Interference is declined and all the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.