Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1086 (KER)

Managing Trustee v. Shaji K. T. , S/o. Chandran

2019-12-19

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, N.ANIL KUMAR

body2019
ORDER : N.ANIL KUMAR, J: The issue involved in these three cases is closely interlinked and hence they are dealt with together. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these petitions, it is advantageous to set out the facts in detail including the background of facts, which have led to the filing of these petitions. Parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners' and 'the respondents' according to their status in R.P.No.407/2019 in WP(C) No.40648/2018 unless otherwise stated. 2. W.P(C)No.40648/2018 was filed by one of the devotees of Sree Valayanadu Bhagavathi, the deity of Sree Valayanadu Devaswom, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Malabar Devaswom Board (2nd respondent in WP(C) No.40648/2018 and 3rd respondent in the review petition) and the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to conduct a detailed enquiry on Ext.P5 representation addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Devaswom Board in the matter of gold covering of 'kodimaram' of Sree Valayanadu Devaswom and also to take appropriate legal action against the persons, who are held responsible for divesting of funds and properties of the temple without authority in violation of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951(Madras Act No.XIX of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said writ petition, wherein one of us (N.Anil Kumar, J.) was a party, was disposed of by this Court on 1.2.2019 with a direction to the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, to take the mass petition and dispose of the said representation within an outer time of three months, after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner in the writ petition as well as the respondents including the Zamorin Raja of Calicut and other stakeholders. In this connection, we think it is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 3 and the operative portion of the judgment as hereunder:- “3. Mr.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 10 submits with reference to the counter affidavit, that the said respondents do not have any objection at all in conducting enquiry by any Authority with regard to the alleged instance of misappropriation in connection with the gold plating of the flag mast. Mr.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 10 submits with reference to the counter affidavit, that the said respondents do not have any objection at all in conducting enquiry by any Authority with regard to the alleged instance of misappropriation in connection with the gold plating of the flag mast. It is however stated that, certain other issues have also been projected and allegations have been raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5, which forms the subject matter of consideration in W.P.(C)No.32595/2016 before this Court and some issues are pending consideration in O.S.No.595/2018 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Calicut as well. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 to the above extent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondents herein and other stakeholders, if any, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 3. In obedience to the direction, the 4th respondent herein, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board after hearing all the parties concerned, passed an order on 13.5.2019 holding that he was inclined to initiate steps under Section 45 of the Act against the Managing Trustee of Sree Valayanad Devaswom regarding the gold plating of flag mast taking into consideration of the fact that the Managing Trustee had no objection at all in conducting enquiry by any authority. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Officer holding the post of Commissioner, whose appointment is under challenge at the instance of the first petitioner to hold the post in WP(C)18934/2017, had considered the aforesaid representation and passed the said order dated 13.5.2019, during the pendency of WP(C) 18934/2017. More so, the said officer had initiated proceedings against the first petitioner under Section 45 of the Act for removing him from the hereditary trusteeship of the Devaswom under him and the same was under challenge in WP(C)32595/2016, wherein this Court had granted a stay of all further proceedings. More so, the said officer had initiated proceedings against the first petitioner under Section 45 of the Act for removing him from the hereditary trusteeship of the Devaswom under him and the same was under challenge in WP(C)32595/2016, wherein this Court had granted a stay of all further proceedings. During the pendency of the above writ petition, at the instance of the Commissioner, three ordinances were promulgated by the Malabar Devaswom Board diluting the qualifications prescribed under Section 8(c) of the Act for the post of Commissioner to suit the qualification to that of the present incumbent and in that regard, later an amendment was brought into Section 8(c) of the Act. The said amendment is also under challenge before this Court. Hence, the instant review petition is filed to delegate the enquiry contemplated to any other authority which this Court deems fit and proper. 5. The review petition was filed on 24.4.2019 before this Court. In the review petition, further proceedings pending before the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board were sought to be stayed. However, no stay was granted. In obedience to the direction issued by this Court in WP(C) No.40648/2018 dated 1.2.2019, the third respondent, after hearing all the parties concerned, passed the aforesaid order dated 13.5.2019, which is under challenge in these writ proceedings. 6. In W.P(C)No.40648/2018, the Managing Trustee, Sree Valayanadu Bhagavathi Devaswom was arrayed as the fourth respondent. The Zamorin Raja of Calicut, who is the present Managing Trustee of Sree Valayanadu Bhagavathi Devaswom filed WP(C) No.15901/2019 challenging the order dated 13.5.2019 issued by the 4th respondent in purported compliance of the directions in WP(C) No.40648/2018. It is the case of the Zamorin Raja that the order dated 13.5.2019 is vitiated by mala fides and bias. Hence, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom is made personally as a party respondent in WP(C)No.15901/2019. It is stated that the Commissioner has maintained all along ill-will and animosity against the Zamorin Raja and the religious institution under his Hereditary Trusteeship. Hence, he seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.5.2019 (Ext.P26) issued by the Commissioner, who is the second respondent in WP(C)No.15901/2019. 7. 8th and 9th respondents in WP(C) No.40648/2018 filed WP(C) No.17124/2019 challenging the order dated 13.5.2019 on account of bias, mala fides and non-application of mind. Hence, he seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.5.2019 (Ext.P26) issued by the Commissioner, who is the second respondent in WP(C)No.15901/2019. 7. 8th and 9th respondents in WP(C) No.40648/2018 filed WP(C) No.17124/2019 challenging the order dated 13.5.2019 on account of bias, mala fides and non-application of mind. They were the President and Secretary respectively of the Sree Valayanadu Devi Kshethram Uthsavagosha Committee during 2017 and 2018. It is stated that the third respondent in W.P(C)No.40648/2018-the Commissioner had passed the order dated 13.5.2019 in the absence of the petitioners and without providing an opportunity of being heard to all the parties. More so, the third respondent in W.P(C)No.40648/2018-the Commissioner had passed the order under challenge after suppressing the specific pleadings of the petitioners raised in objection to the enquiry being chaired by him due to the apprehension of apparent bias. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan filed separate statements before this Court in all the pending proceedings for and on behalf of the Malabar Devaswom Board. In respect of W.P(C) No.17124/2019, it is contended that the Utsavaghosha Committee was approved by the Malabar Devaswom Board only for the smooth performance of the annual festival of the temple and not for the gold covering of the 'Kodimaram'. As per Circular No.HRH.5-8246/06 dated 15.6.2007 of the Malabar Devaswom Board, only those committees are allowed to work in the temples that are constituted for specific purposes like conduct of festival, or renovation works and such Committees so constituted for specific purposes shall be disbanded soon after the accomplishment of the purposes for which they were constituted. In other words, no permanent committee can be allowed to function in the temple. That apart, no permanent committee, except in the nature of an adhoc committee for some specific purposes is permitted to meddle with the affairs of the temple in view of the circular cited above. It is further contended that an adhoc committee can function in conformity with the guidelines laid down in the circular. According to the Malabar Devaswom Board, generally Committees are being formed by the devotees for general and specific purposes in the temple and the balance of collected amount is liable to be transferred to the Devaswom accounts, immediately after the event and cannot be kept in the custody of such committees. According to the Malabar Devaswom Board, generally Committees are being formed by the devotees for general and specific purposes in the temple and the balance of collected amount is liable to be transferred to the Devaswom accounts, immediately after the event and cannot be kept in the custody of such committees. It is therefore stated that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order of the Commissioner dated 13.5.2019. 9. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.17124/2019, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, Sri.Mahesh.V.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in R.P.No.407/2019 and Sri.T.K.Anandakrishnan, the learned Government Pleader. 10. The fourth respondent-Zamorin Raja in WP(C) No. 40648/2018, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.15901/2019, filed WPC No.12681/2019 before the vacation bench of this Court on 25.4.2019 inter alia, challenging the order dated 08.04.2019 in I.A.No.14/2019 issued by the third respondent in W.P(C)No.40648/2018, viz., the Commissioner, declining the application filed by the fourth respondent-Zamorin Raja to refrain from hearing the case. I.A.No.14/2019 was filed before the Commissioner alleging that he is not competent to hear the case under Section 8(c) of the Act. By order dated 8.4.2019, the Commissioner dismissed the above application. Hence, the Zamorin Raja filed the writ petition before the vacation bench of this Court. 11. After having heard both sides, a vacation bench of this Court, in which one of us (N.Anil Kumar, J.) was a party, inter alia held that the third respondent commissioner could not be blamed for having passed the order dated 8.4.2019 rejecting the request of the Zamorin Raja as he was bound by the judgment in WP(C)No.40648/2018. The challenge against the order dated 8.4.2019 issued by the Commissioner was therefore repelled. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 12. As indicated earlier, Ext.P26 order was issued by the Devaswom Commissioner in accordance with the direction issued by this Court. Challenging Ext.P26 order, the fourth respondent in WP(C)No.40648/2018 filed WP(C) No.15901/2019 and 8th and 9th respondents therein filed WP(C) No.17124/2019 before this Court. 13. Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple is situated at Valayanadu in Mankavu Govindapuram route in the city of Kozhikode. The temple is an ancient one. The main deity is Bhadrakali and the deity faces north. Challenging Ext.P26 order, the fourth respondent in WP(C)No.40648/2018 filed WP(C) No.15901/2019 and 8th and 9th respondents therein filed WP(C) No.17124/2019 before this Court. 13. Sree Valayanadu Devi Temple is situated at Valayanadu in Mankavu Govindapuram route in the city of Kozhikode. The temple is an ancient one. The main deity is Bhadrakali and the deity faces north. Historywise, the temple, dedicated to Bhagavathy has its own distinct identity and is different in several respects from other Devi temples in India. The presiding deity of the temple is the Goddess from Kashmir known as 'Chandika' and also called 'Mahartham' and 'Kalasarppini'. The annual festival commences every year on the day of Karthika of Makaram and continues for seven days. 14. The temple was built in the 14th century by the Zamorins. It is believed that during his conquest of the kingdom of Valluvakonathiri, the Zamorin could not establish control over Govindapuram inspite of having a military advantage. It is thus believed that the Zamorin could manage this only after worshipping the Goddess intensely. With this victory, he built a temple dedicated to Goddess (Devi) at Govindapuram and the Goddess became the family deity of the Zamorins. The temple belongs to four families namely Mankada, Ayiramanazhi, Kadannavanna and Aripra Kovilakam. The Hereditary trustee is the Seniormost male member of the four families. 15. Admittedly, 8th and 9th respondents are the President and Secretary respectively of Sree Valayanadu Devikshethra Uthsavaghosha Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') during the years 2017 and 2018. The temple holds its annual festival every year on the day of Karthika in Makaram. The festival, being attended by lakhs of devotees, concludes 7 days after the flag hoisting with the 'Pallivetta' and 'Arattu' on the concluding days. It is the specific case of 8th and 9th respondents in WP(C)No.40648/2018 viz., the petitioners in W.P(C) No.17124 of 2019 that the Committee after conducting the temple festivals, utilises the surplus donations towards developing facilities at the temple, for its general repair and for other benefits of the temple. It is pointed out that all these activities are carried out after obtaining permission from the fourth respondent who manages the affairs of the temple as its hereditary trustee. It is pointed out that all these activities are carried out after obtaining permission from the fourth respondent who manages the affairs of the temple as its hereditary trustee. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners Sri.S.Sreekumar in WP(C) No.17124/2019 contends that the Act does not contain any provision requiring prior permission of the second respondent-Malabar Devaswom Board for the developmental activities of the temple. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was in this context that on 10.8.2017 the Committee held a meeting where an amount of Rs.6,94,495/-was found to be surplus and it was suggested that the flag mast of the temple could be gold-plated after collecting further donations. 16. In support of the contentions, the learned Senior Counsel mainly relied on the following points:- (i) The installation and maintenance of flag mast is an inevitable ritual of the temple and occupies a vital role especially during its festival months. (ii) No permission was sought for from the Board or the Commissioner for gold plating of the flag mast since that was within the authority of the hereditary trustee. (iii) From 2003 onwards, after conducting the temple festival, the Committee has been utilizing the surplus donations towards developing facilities at the temple. (iv) Hitherto, the Commissioner or the Board has not objected to any of the work done by the Committee since all those works were related to the development of the temple. (v) It is evident by Ext.P5 that the third respondent Commissioner granted the approval for formation of the 2017 committee, 10 months after the 2017 festival and such an approval is based on Departmental Circular bearing No.HRH5-8246/06 dated 15.6.2007. (vi) Exts.P7 to P22 in WP(C) 17124/2019 would show that gold plating of the flag mast was done in a transparent manner in accordance with the opinion of the Kshethram Thanthri, Devaprasnam etc. (vii) On 30.11.2017, the Committee, through the Temple Executive Officer, submitted a written request to the 4th respondent in WP(C) No.40648/2018-Trustee urging him to sanction an urgent loan of Rs.30,00,000/-from Sree Valayanad Devaswom Fund so that the gold required for the work could be procured urgently by Ext.P21. (viii) On 30.11.2017 itself, the Trustee passed an order sanctioning a loan of Rs.30,00,000/-keeping in mind the urgent requirement to complete the work prior to the festival and directing the Committee to repay the said amount from the donations to be received. (viii) On 30.11.2017 itself, the Trustee passed an order sanctioning a loan of Rs.30,00,000/-keeping in mind the urgent requirement to complete the work prior to the festival and directing the Committee to repay the said amount from the donations to be received. (ix) Pursuant thereto, the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.30,00,000/-was released, the Committee purchased the gold as required, handed it over to the contractor and the work was completed before the festival without any further hitches. (x) Immediately after the conduct of the festival, the Committee made a part payment of Rs.15,68,249.92 including 106.47gms of gold on 14.3.2008. (xi) The 4th respondent trustee has informed the 3rd respondent Commissioner at every stage of financial decision writing several letters including the ones dated 27.10.2017, 23.11.2017 and 28.11.2017 produced as Exts.P13, P17 and P20 in WPC No.17124/2019. (xii) The 3rd respondent Commissioner by Ext.P23 notice in WP(C) 17124/2019 dtd 27.2.2018 declined permission to utilise the gold of the temple, as no prior approval or permission was taken from the second respondent-Board. (xiii) The power of the Board and its authority is only to see that the funds of the temple are not being squandered, wasted, spent unwisely and the religious institution does not suffer due to the act committed by the Trustee. 17. Before going into the various aspects in detail, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act. It reads as follows:- “45. Power to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or nonhereditary trustee or trustees thereof- (a) for persistent default in the submission of budgets, accounts, reports or returns, or (b) for wilful disobedience of any lawful order issued under the provisions of this Act by the State Government, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, or (c) for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the trust, or (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution, or (e) for unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits him for discharging the functions of the trustee. (2) When it is proposed to take action under sub-section (1), the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall frame charges against the trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charges, of testing the evidence in his favour; and the order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the charges framed against the trustee, his explanation and the finding on each charge with the reasons therefore: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall also consult the Area Committee before passing the final order under sub-section (1). (3) Pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the trustee. (4) It shall be open to an Assistant Commissioner to move the Deputy Commissioner to take action under sub-section (1) in respect of any trustee of an institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and to place the trustee under suspension pending the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3). (5) A trustee who is suspended, removed or dismissed under subsection (1), may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order of suspension, removal or dismissal, appeal against the order to the Commissioner if it was passed by a Deputy Commissioner, and to the State Government if it was passed by the Commissioner.” 18. Section 47 of the Act deals with the filling up of vacancies in the office of hereditary trustees. Section 57 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to settle certain disputes and matters. Section 100 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. It also provides the matters in regard to which the rules could be made. 19. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar submitted that this Court had occasion to consider the relationship between the hereditary trustee and the Board in Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments(Admn.) Department [ 2011(4) KLT 230 ]. In the aforesaid decision, this Court held that the power conferred under Section 45 of the Act is to be exercised in a reasonable manner and only in appropriate cases. In the aforesaid decision, this Court held that the power conferred under Section 45 of the Act is to be exercised in a reasonable manner and only in appropriate cases. Thus, it is argued that for each and every matter to be done in relation to the temple, it is invariably not necessary that the hereditary trustee should look up to the Commissioner or other officers under the Act for consent and sanction. Stated differently, as long as the acts done by the hereditary trustee falls within the normal administrative function, and within the ambit and scope of Section 24 of the Act, it could not be said that the trustee would be acting against the orders of the State, Commissioner or other Officers of the State, as the case may be. 20. On a perusal of Ext.P26 in WP(C)15901/2019 (Ext.P1 in WP(C) 17124/2019) order of the Commissioner, it is clear that considering the gravity of the allegations regarding the gold plating of flag mast, detailed in the copy of the mass petition submitted before the Hon'ble Devaswom Minister signed by Sri.P.Sathish Babu and others, mainly regarding the alleged instance of misappropriation in connection with the gold plating of the flag mast in Sree Valayanadu Devaswom, the Commissioner was inclined to initiate steps under Section 45 of the Act against the Managing Trustee of Sree Valayanadu Devaswom in compliance with the directions contained as per the judgment dated 1.2.2019 in WP(C) No.40648/2018 of this Court. Going by the impugned order, it is further clear that initially the Managing Trustee has submitted an application seeking permission to use the gold from the stock of Devaswom and to convert the remaining gold as bullion. Pursuant to the application, a report was called for from the Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode. The Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode submitted his report stating that the alleged gold plating work was executed, violating all the basic requirements so as to ensure transparency and propriety of the work. The impugned order further discloses that though an estimate for Rs.9,00,000/-was prepared, mandatory approval of the Board was not obtained. Thus, the Committee unauthorisedly collected gold from the devotees as “Swarna Nidhi' and gold so collected comes to 235 gms., which is entered in the inventory register used for the alleged work along with 327.45 gms of gold purchased by using Rs.10 lakh. Thus, the Committee unauthorisedly collected gold from the devotees as “Swarna Nidhi' and gold so collected comes to 235 gms., which is entered in the inventory register used for the alleged work along with 327.45 gms of gold purchased by using Rs.10 lakh. Thus, the total cost of gold used for the work is 562.450 gms (235gms. + 327.450gms). The Commissioner relied on the report of the Assistant Commissioner that even though a sum of Rs.19,77,860/-was collected from the devotees, Rs.10,00,000/-was utilised for the said work. The remaining balance available is Rs.7,99,961/-instead of Rs.9,77,864/-, which amounts to a shortage of Rs.1,77,903/-. 21. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan contended that considering the gravity of the situation, the entire matter was placed before the Malabar Devaswom Board and the Board on its meeting held on 7.12.2017, resolved to seek explanation from the Managing Committee on the large scale irregularities in the execution of alleged work without complying with all the procedural formalities. 22. Indisputably, no previous sanction was obtained from the Board for the alleged work in the temple. In Hindu temples, the Committee of devotees are generally formed with the approval of the Board. The temple is a listed temple under the Board. So far as the Committees are concerned, after the purpose of the Committee is accomplished, the general practice is to dissolve the committee after handing over the accounts and balance, if any, to the Board. It appears that in the instant case, the Managing Trustee had entrusted the Committee for the gold plating of the flag mast of the Devaswom. 23. Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that Section 100 of the Act provides power to make rules of the State Government to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act not inconsistent therewith as stated under Section 100(2) (q),(r)and (s). It reads as hereunder:- “100.Power to make rules.-(1) The State Government may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act and not inconsistent therewith. It reads as hereunder:- “100.Power to make rules.-(1) The State Government may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act and not inconsistent therewith. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, they shall have power to make rules with reference to the following matters:- xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx (q) the preservation, maintenance, management and improvement of the properties and buildings of religious institutions; (r) the inspection and supervision of the properties and buildings of religious institutions, the reports to be submitted by persons making such inspection and supervision and the fees leviable for such inspection, supervision and report; (s) the preservation of the images in temples;” The word 'religious-institution' is defined under Section 6(15) of the Act. Religious institution means a math, temple or specific endowment. As per Section 6(17), 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 public religious worship. The term 'building work' is defined under Rule 1 of the Rules under Section 100(2)(q)(r) and (s). It reads as follows:- “Rules under Section 100(2)(q),(r) and (s) 1. Definitions.--In these rules-- (1)”building work” includes work relating to the construction, repair, alteration, conservation or renovation of a building and other works of construction belonging to a religious institution.” Going by the Rule 2 of the Rules under Section 100(2)(q)(r) and (s), it is very clear that the trustee of a religious institution shall submit to the appropriate authority annually, six months before the end of each fasli, a report on the building works which it is desirable or necessary to carry out during the succeeding fasli, setting out the need for, and the details of, the works and giving a rough estimate of the expenditure involved and of the manner in which the expenditure of the work is proposed to be met. Rule 5(1) provides that on the appropriate authority approving a proposal of the trustee to execute the building works from the funds of the institution or with a donation made by a worshipper or other person, the trustee shall prepare detailed estimates for the works proposed, make provision in the budget for the proposed expenditure and submit the estimate along with the plans to the appropriate authority. Rule 5(2) provides that when the appropriate authority approves the trustee's proposal to allow a worshipper or other person to execute any building works and settle the conditions on which such permission may be granted, the trustee shall obtain from such worshipper or other person detailed plans or estimates for the works proposed and submit them to the appropriate authority with his remarks. Rule 6 provides that the appropriate authority may sanction the plans and estimates submitted under sub-rule(1) or sub-rule(2) of Rule 5 with such modifications and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit and where the cost of the construction to be met from the funds of the institution, sanction, the necessary expenditure. Rule 9 provides that a trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work without the previous sanction of the appropriate authority provided that minor repairs, which cannot, owing to urgency be postponed, may be executed in anticipation of sanction applied for. 24. Going by the rules, it is clear that a trustee shall not, except with the appropriate authority's express previous sanction, permit any worshipper or other person to commence the execution of any building work. Going by the definition contemplated under the Rules, we are satisfied that the term 'building work' includes the premises of a religious institution and any building or structure in the possession of a temple. Therefore, we are of the view that gold plating of flag mast in the temple is a building work as defined under the Act and Rules. Any contra interpretation will defeat the very purpose of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 25. Section 20 of the Act inter alia provides that the administration of all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner; and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such endowments are properly administered subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 20 of the Act inter alia provides that the administration of all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner; and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such endowments are properly administered subject to the provisions of the Act. By virtue of Section 45 of the Act, the Commissioner is competent to take appropriate action to suspend, remove or dismiss the trustees. By virtue of the impugned notice, the Commissioner desires to initiate, take steps under Section 45 of the Act against the Managing Trustee of the temple. In case an order is passed in accordance with the Scheme of the Act against the trustee, an appeal is provided under Section 45(5) of the Act before the State Government, challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. In the case at hand, the Commissioner is inclined to take, initiate action under Section 45 of the Act for the alleged irregularities as mandated by this Court in W.P(C) No.40648 of 2018. Going by the decision in Bhanunni's case (supra), the petitioner therein was directed to furnish a reply to the notice and the petitioner did so. Presumably dissatisfied with the reply, the competent authority framed 18 charges and issued memo of charges to the petitioner therein. In the case on hand, no enquiry as contemplated under the Act, was initiated against the Managing Trustee. In case the enquiry goes against the Managing Trustee ultimately, it is well within the realm of the Managing Trustee to avail the statutory remedy by way of an appeal before the competent authority as contemplated under the Act. Serious misappropriation concerning the administration of the temple is sought to be enquired. This cannot be challenged by way of a writ proceedings. We are of the view that the dictum laid down in Bhanunni's case(supra) is not applicable in this case. The writ petition was filed by the Managing Trustee to flout the enquiry proceedings besides being premature. 26. True, an enquiry officer, if he is biased in any manner, should not be entrusted with the enquiry. It is time and again said that “not only justice must be done, but also seen to be done”. The writ petition was filed by the Managing Trustee to flout the enquiry proceedings besides being premature. 26. True, an enquiry officer, if he is biased in any manner, should not be entrusted with the enquiry. It is time and again said that “not only justice must be done, but also seen to be done”. However, this dictum is not universally applicable so as to enable an aggrieved to visualise that there is likelihood of bias before the enquiry officer and to initiate legal action for setting aside the enquiry proceedings. In this case, the enquiry proceedings are yet to be commenced. 27. The learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent in WP(C).No.40648 of 2018 submits that in spite of request filed before the 3rd respondent alleging bias, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry to reach a predetermined conclusion. Subsequent to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.40648 of 2018, the 4th respondent therein had made a request before the 3rd respondent therein to stay the enquiry proceedings on the allegation of bias. The application was disallowed. The order of rejection passed by the Commissioner, the 3rd respondent, was challenged in W.P.(C)No.18934/2017 and this Court repelled the contention of the 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.18934/2017. The finding has become final. Hence the apprehension of bias alleged by the 4th respondent cannot be reagitated in this writ proceedings. That apart, the power is admittedly vested with the Commissioner and there is only one Commissioner. 28. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar contended that in the present case, the 4th respondent was compelled to grant sanction for gold covering of the 'kodimaram' in certain unavoidable situations. According to the learned Senior Counsel, if the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit therefrom. Rule 9 of Rules under Section 100(2)(q)(r) and (s) expressly provides that a trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work without the sanction of the appropriate Authority provided that minor repairs, which cannot owing to urgency be postponed in anticipation of sanction applied for. In the case at hand, the work done was not coming under the category of minor repairs as stated in the Rules. Hence the doctrine of necessity cannot be pressed into service in this case. 29. In the case at hand, the work done was not coming under the category of minor repairs as stated in the Rules. Hence the doctrine of necessity cannot be pressed into service in this case. 29. In the decision reported in Bhanunni's case (supra) this Court observed in para 78 of the judgment as follows:- “78. During the course of hearing, we have come across a very disturbing fact. On most of the occasions at the time when the hereditary trustee assumes office he is far advanced in age, and is physically unable to personally attend to the administration and management of the temple. It is seen stated that in the case on hand that even though the senior most member of the family is entitled to become the hereditary trustee, there used to be a committee formed from among the four family members to assist the hereditary trustee in the administration of the temple. That practice seems to have been given a go by and quite often when the hereditary trustee who is in almost all instances is a person of advanced age being unable to administer and manage the temple, delegates his functions to a nominee. It is seen that the nominee then usurps to himself all powers and it is found that he often indulges in mismanagement and maladministration. We feel that it is only in the interests of the institution that the earlier practice of forming a committee from among the four families to assist the hereditary trustee in the administration is restored or at any rate a person who is acceptable to the four families is nominated by the hereditary trustee in case the hereditary trustee finds it difficult to manage the affairs due to his advanced age or for any other reason.” In this case also, the main allegation is that the Zamorin Raja, being 95 years old, facing ailments of old age is not aware of the maladministration and misappropriation carrying out by his two nephews, who are holding the administration of 42 temples coming under the trusteeship of Sree Zamorin Raja. We too feel that it is only in the interests of the institution that the earlier practice of forming a Committee from among the four families, to assist the hereditary trustee in the administration, is restored or at any rate, who is acceptable to the four families, is nominated by the hereditary trustee in case the hereditary trustee finds it difficult to manage the affairs due to his advanced age or for any other reason. In the result, WP(C) Nos.15901/2019 and 17124/2019 are dismissed. Resultantly, in the light of the decision in W.P(C)Nos.15901/2019 and 17124/2019, nothing survives for consideration in R.P.No.407/2019 in WP(C)No.40648/2018. The Review Petition is therefore dismissed.