Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1077 (KER)

N. v. Ganapathi Namboothiri VS State of Kerala

2023-12-22

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, SOPHY THOMAS

body2023
JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. W.P. (C) No. 29277 of 2023: The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and proceed under Section 37 to make proper arrangements for effective management of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple; to take appropriate action as per the directions contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 667 - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 and take back the administration of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No. 893 and appoint an appropriate authority to administer the affairs of that temple and direct the 3rd respondent District Judge, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 in terms of the direction contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] and file a report before this Court, after conducting an enquiry. 1.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Komabanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is having 1.87 Acres of property in Old Survey No. 386/4 of Kombanad Village, was being managed by the family of the petitioner. When the father of the petitioner was finding it difficult to manage the temple, as he was managing several other temples, he executed Ext.P1 agreement dated 24.04.1956 with the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No. 893 and handed over the management of the temple to SNDP Sakha. In that agreement, it is provided that if the management of the temple is not as per the conditions mentioned therein, the petitioner’s father have every right to take back the management, without serving any notice. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, in the year 1956 some SNDP Sakha members abandoned the idol of Sree Dharma Sastha into a well and stopped poojas. Upon serious objections, they retrieved the broken idol from the well and re-consecrated the same in the temple and started poojas. Thereafter, during 1970s, the 4th respondent without conducting any devaprasnam and thantric rituals, removed the deity of Sree Dharma Sastha and thrown it to Paniyeli river and installed the idol of Lord Ayyappa in that temple. Upon serious objections, they retrieved the broken idol from the well and re-consecrated the same in the temple and started poojas. Thereafter, during 1970s, the 4th respondent without conducting any devaprasnam and thantric rituals, removed the deity of Sree Dharma Sastha and thrown it to Paniyeli river and installed the idol of Lord Ayyappa in that temple. The 4th respondent constructed an Industrial Training College (ITC) in the temple property and also started conducting marriages in the temple, in spite of the fact that marriages are not to be performed in Sastha Temples. Since the 4th respondent is mismanaging the temple in all respects, in total violation of the provisions of Ext.P1 agreement, affecting the divinity of the temple, the petitioner’s father issued notice to the 4th respondent, claiming repossession of the management of the temple, and thereafter filed O.S. No. 231 of 1981 (Ext.P2 plaint) before the Munsiff Court, Perumabavur, seeking cancellation of that agreement and for other consequential reliefs. In that suit, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P3 written statement dated 23.10.1981. Since the petitioner’s father could not proceed with that suit due to his illness, it was dismissed for default by Ext.P4 judgment dated 06.11.1984. 1.2. In the writ petition, it is stated that, In Ext.P5 order in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] the Apex Court held that the protection of assets with regards to shrines irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for courts. The Apex Court directed every District Judge throughout India to examine such matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and sent a report to the concerned High Court. Such a report can be treated as Public Interest Litigation, on the judicial side, and such direction may be issued by the High Court, as may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact situation. Pointing out the said decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 before the 3rd respondent District Judge, Ernakulam, requesting to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action as per the directions contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] and take back the administration of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No. 893 and appoint an appropriate authority to administer the affairs of that temple. 2. 2. W.P. (C) No. 29370 of 2023: This writ petition is one filed by Pariyarathappan Kshethra Chaithanyarjjava Paripalana Sabha, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent District Judge, Thalassery, to dispose of Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made by the petitioner, in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P6 order dated 05.07.2018 of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] and file a report before this Court; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 notice dated 15.03.2023 issued by the Secretary of the 4th respondent Mattannur Municipality, whereby the President and Secretary of the 5th respondent Sree Subrahmanya Kshethra Seva Samithi are required to stop the constructions being made in Pariyaram Sree Subrahmanyaswamy Temple and intimate the same to the office of the Municipality, within 7 days from the date of receipt of that notice, and Ext.P11 notice dated 03.08.2023 issued by the Secretary of the 4th respondent Municipality, whereby the President/Secretary of the 5th respondent Seva Samithi was informed that based on a complaint made by respondents 6 to 9, a local inspection was conducted, in which it was found that unauthorised constructions have been made in the temple premises, which are neither removed nor regularised. Since illegal construction is being continued, the 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi was directed to show cause, giving explanations, since proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 are proposed. 2.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Pariyaram Sree Subrahmanyaswami Temple is situated in Sy. No. 39/2 (Re. Sy. No. 13/1) of Kolari Village. The temple pond is situated in the land comprised in Sy. No. 38/1 (Re. Sy. No. 14/2) of Kolari Village. In revenue records, the property is shown as ‘temple’ and ‘temple pond’ and as such exempted from payment of land tax. The family of respondents 6 to 9 claimed that they are the Ooralans of Pariyaram Sree Subrahmanyaswami Temple, on the basis of Ext.P1 settlement register. As such, the people in the locality were under the belief that the temple and its properties are the property of respondents 6 to 9. Treating them as Ooralans of the temple, Ext.P2 agreement was entered into between the 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi and the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, for maintaining and renovating the temple. As such, the people in the locality were under the belief that the temple and its properties are the property of respondents 6 to 9. Treating them as Ooralans of the temple, Ext.P2 agreement was entered into between the 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi and the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, for maintaining and renovating the temple. The 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi, with the help of the devotees and the people in the locality continued renovation works, after taking over the administration of the temple and carried out administration and maintenance in a very commendable way. 2.2. In the writ petition, it is alleged that when the temple attained some financial stability, the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, claiming to be the Ooralans of the temple, filed O.S. No. 450 of 1999 before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparambu, for mandatory injunction directing the 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi to hand over the management, administration and possession of the plaint schedule property, i.e. the temple and its pond to the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9. That suit was decreed by the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba, vide Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.09.2009. That judgment was confirmed by the Sub Court, Thalassery, vide Ext.P4 judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016 in A.S. No. 148 of 2009, against which R.S.A. No. 678 of 2017 was filed before this Court, which was also dismissal as not pressed vide judgment dated 23.02.2022. 2.3. According to the petitioner, he made enquiries and found that as per Ext.P1 settlement register, respondents 6 to 9 or their predecessors are not the Ooralans of the temples. The properties having an extent of 78 cents in Sy. No. 37/4 (Re. Sy. No. 15/4), 23 cents in Sy. No. 38/1 (Re. Sy. No. 14/2), 25 cents in Sy. No. 38/2 (Re. Sy. No. 14/1), 2.1 Acres in Sy. No. 39/1 (Re. Sy. No. 13/2) and 1.64 Acres in Sy. No. 39/2 (Re. Sy. No. 13/1) of Kolari Village are Devaswom properties. But the name of predecessors of respondents 6 to 9 are recorded as owners of the property. The petitioner also found that the original temple property, which was categorised as a property exempted from payment of land tax, has been transferred in the name of predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, in the year 1969, by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Madras Land Reforms Act. The petitioner also found that the original temple property, which was categorised as a property exempted from payment of land tax, has been transferred in the name of predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, in the year 1969, by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Madras Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner, the properties having an extent of 4.91 Acres belonging to Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple are in the illegal possession of respondents 6 to 9. 2.4. In the writ petition, it is averred that, since respondents 6 to 9 and their predecessors are claiming to be the Ooralans of the property, without any legal back up, who have handed over the temple to the 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi, based on Ext.P2 agreement, and because of the disputes between the 5th respondent and respondents 6 to 9, the management of the temple has been adversely affected. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 before the 3rd respondent District Judge, Kannur, to conduct an enquiry into the encroachment of the property of the minor deity of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple having an extent of 5.08 Ares in Sy. No. 39/2 (Re. Sy. No. 13/1), Sy. No. 38/1 (Re. Sy. No. 14/2), Sy. No. 37/4 (Re. Sy. No. 15/4), Sy. No. 38/2 (Re. Sy. No. 14/1), Sy. No. 39/1 (Re. Sy. No. 13/2) of Kolari Village. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and official respondents, on the question of maintainability of the writ petitions. 4. ‘Deva’ means God and ‘swom’ means ownership in Sanskrit and the term ‘Devaswom’ denotes the property of God in common parlance. [See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2018 (1) KHC 536 ] 5. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482 a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 6. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No. 1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy. No. 1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy. No. 1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy. No. 1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S. No. 399 of 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy. No. 1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No. 3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy. No. 1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. In Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Mohanan Nair, 2013 (3) KLT 132 a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan (2007) 7 SCC 482 the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 8. In Mohanan Nair 2013 (3) KLT 132 the Division Bench relied on the decision in Achuthan Pillai vs. State of Kerala, 1970 KLT 838 , wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e. Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated Rameswar Pagoda Case (1874) 1 Ind App 209 it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated Rameswar Pagoda Case (1874) 1 Ind App 209 it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contentions of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non-feasance of a trustee. 9. In Nandakumar vs. District Collector and Others, 2018 (2) KHC 58 a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction in Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482 . The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Mohanan Nair, 2013 (3) KLT 132 . In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without the involvement of the Devaswom, securing ‘pattayam’ or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 10. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, 2018 (3) KHC 549 a Division Bench of this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy. No. 1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court in A.A. Gopalakrishnan (2007) 7 SCC 482 . Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy. No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard, there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected. 11. In Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 789 : 2018 SCC Online SC 667 - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed that the issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is a need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or assign the issue/matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction, examine above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or assign the issue/matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction, examine above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as become necessary, having regard to the individual fact situation. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 [2018 SCC Online SC 667] read thus; “10. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilization of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and there is need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. 11. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a Court also to issue directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, we direct that if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/matter to any other Court under his/her jurisdiction examine the above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as become necessary, having regard to the individual fact situation. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 20. We may sum up our directions in today’s orders, in addition to the orders dated 08.06.2018, as follows: (i) Report of the District Judge dated 26.6.2018 is accepted in principle and action to be taken by the temple administration. (ii) District Judge, Puri may send further report, if any by 31.8.2018, preferably by e-mail. (iii) The State Government may submit report of the Committee constituted by it on or before 31.8.2018. (ii) District Judge, Puri may send further report, if any by 31.8.2018, preferably by e-mail. (iii) The State Government may submit report of the Committee constituted by it on or before 31.8.2018. (iv) The Central Government may constitute its Committee, as already directed, within two weeks from today and place its interim report on record of this Court on or before 31.8.2018. (v) Copy of the Report of the District Judge may be placed on the websites of the temple management, Ministry of Culture and website of the Supreme Court for two weeks. (vi) The directions in the order dated 8.6.2018 may be complied with by all concerned and non-compliance thereof may be reported to this Court for appropriate action if necessary. (vii) The temple management may consider, subject to regulatory measures, with regard to dress code, giving of an appropriate declaration or compliance with other directions, permitting every visitor irrespective of his faith, to offer respects and to make offerings to the deity. (viii) We have noted that Hinduism does not eliminate any other belief and is eternal faith and wisdom and inspiration of centuries, as noted in earlier judgments of this Court. (ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protections of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation. (x) Learned amicus is at liberty to engage with all stakeholders and to give suggestions for bringing about improvements and also to give a report to this Court. However, this will not stand in the way of the Committee of the State Government, Committee of the Central Government or any District Judge considering matters in terms of above directions.” (Underline supplied) 12. In paragraph 11 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] the Apex Court referred to the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with public charities. 13. In paragraph 11 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC Online SC 667] the Apex Court referred to the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with public charities. 13. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with public charities. In view of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree of any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-Section (1). Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 read thus: (a) removing any trustee. (b) appointing a new trustee. (c) vesting any property in a trustee. (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property. (d) directing accounts and inquiries. (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust. (f) authoriszing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged. (g) settling a scheme. (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. 14. (f) authoriszing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged. (g) settling a scheme. (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. 14. Sub-Section (2) of Section 92 of the Code provides that, save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in Sub-Section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with the provisions of that Sub-Section. 15. As per Sub-Section (3) of Section 92, the court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cy press in one or more of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (3) read thus: (a) where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part: (i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled. (ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust. (b) where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust. (c) where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes. (d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes. (e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down: (i) been adequately provided for by other means. (ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community. (iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable. (e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down: (i) been adequately provided for by other means. (ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community. (iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable. (iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust. 16. In Madappa vs. M.N. Mahanthadevaru, AIR 1966 SC 878 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for two classes of cases, namely, (i) where there is a breach of trust in a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, and (ii) where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. The reliefs to be sought in a suit under Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 are indicated in that Section and include removal of any trustee, the appointment of a new trustee, vesting of any property in a trustee, directing a removed trustee or person who has ceased to be a trustee to deliver possession of trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property, directing accounts and enquiries, declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorisation of the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged, or settlement of a scheme. The nature of these reliefs will show that a suit under Section 92 may be filed when there is a breach of trust or when the administration of the trust generally requires improvement. 17. In Madappa [ AIR 1966 SC 878 ] the Constitution Bench held that the main purpose of Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of Code is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. That is why it provides that suits under that section can only be filed either by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the (consent in writing of the Advocate General) [Substituted as ‘leave of the Court’ by Act 104 of 1974]. That is why it provides that suits under that section can only be filed either by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the (consent in writing of the Advocate General) [Substituted as ‘leave of the Court’ by Act 104 of 1974]. The object is that before the Advocate General files a suit or gives his consent for filing a suit, he would satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case either of breach of trust or of the necessity for obtaining directions of the Court. 18. In R. Venugopala Naidu vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities, (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 356 the Apex Court held that a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a suit of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trusts and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. 19. The directions issued by the Apex Court in clauses (i) to (viii) and (x) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 [2018 SCC Online SC 667] are in respect of the issue of public importance highlighted in that writ petition relating to the difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri and their harassment or exploitation by the Sevaks of the temple. Before the Apex Court, it was pointed out that the environment of the surroundings is not hygienic, as it ought to be, and there are encroachments. There are deficiencies in the management of the shrine and the rituals are commercialised. See: Para 1 of the order dated 08.06.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 [2018 SCC Online SC 602]. 20. It is in that context that the Apex Court issued a general direction in clause (ix) of Para 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 [2018 SCC Online SC 667] for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees of all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines, on account of harassment or exploitation by those in management, unhygienic surroundings, encroachments, deficiencies in management, etc. The general direction contained in clause (ix) of Para 20 is to the effect that difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protection of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation. 21. The petition that can be moved by a devotee in terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the aforesaid order dated 05.07.2018 [2018 SCC Online SC 667] of the Apex Court is not one invoking the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since that provision of the Code, which deals with public charities, can be invoked only in the manner provided in Sub-Section (1) of Section 92, to obtain a decree of any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. In terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 of the Apex Court, which is one issued for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees on account of deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings or protection of assets of shrines, a devotee can approach the District Judge having jurisdiction, with a petition pointing out the difficulties faced by him on account of any such matters, in which event the District Judge may examine such matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned, for consideration of that report in the judicial side, for issuing any direction as may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact situation. 22. 22. Now, coming to the facts of the cases on hand, we notice that, in Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29277 of 2023, before the District Judge, Ernakulam, he is requesting the District Judge to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action as per the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 649 of 2018 [2018 SCC Online SC 667], and take back the administration of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple from the 4th respondent SNDP Sakha No. 893 and appoint an appropriate authority to administer the affairs of that temple. The averments in the writ petition, which we have noted hereinbefore at paragraph 1.1 would show that claiming repossession of the management of the temple, alleging violation of the provisions under Ext.P1 agreement dated 24.04.1956, the petitioner’s father filed O.S. No. 231 of 1981, before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavur, for cancellation of that agreement, which was dismissed by default by Ext.P4 judgment dated 06.11.1984. The issue in respect of the management of Kombanad Sree Dharma Sastha Temple raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 petition dated 27.02.2023 is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018. 23. Similarly, in Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 29370 of 2023, namely, Pariyarathappan Kshethra Chaithanyarjjava Paripalana Sabha, before the District Judge, Thalaserry, the petitioner is requesting the District Judge to conduct an enquiry into the alleged encroachment of the property of the minor deity of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple, having an extent of 5.08 Ares in Sy. No. 39/2 (Re. Sy. No. 13/1), Sy. No. 38/1 (Re. Sy. No. 14/2), Sy. No. 37/4 (Re. Sy. No. 15/4), Sy. No. 38/2 (Re. Sy. No. 14/1), Sy. No. 39/1 (Re. Sy. No. 13/2) of Kolari Village, covered by Ext.P1 settlement register. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 to 9 or their predecessors are not Ooralans of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple. However, the name of the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9 are recorded as owners of that property, which has been transferred in their name, in the year 1969, by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Madras Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 to 9 or their predecessors are not Ooralans of Pariyaram Subrahmaniya Swamy Temple. However, the name of the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9 are recorded as owners of that property, which has been transferred in their name, in the year 1969, by the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Madras Land Reforms Act. The averments in the writ petition, which we have noted hereinbefore at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3, would show that in O.S. No. 450 of 1999 filed by the predecessors of respondents 6 to 9, claiming to be the Ooralans of the temple, seeking mandatory injunction directing the 5th respondent Sree Subrahmanya Kshethra Seva Samithi to handover them the management, administration and possession of the petition schedule property, i.e. the temple and its pond, the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba granted a decree in their favour, as evident from Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.09.2009, which was confirmed by the Sub Court, Thalassery in Ext.P4 judgment dated 20.10.2016 in A.S. No. 148 of 2009, which was under challenge in RSA No. 678 of 2017 and the said RSA was dismissed as not pressed vide judgment dated 23.02.2022. The issue raised in Ext.P7 petition dated 20.09.2021 made before the District Judge, Kannur is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018. 24. In the above circumstances, the relief sought for in both writ petitions seeking an order directing the concerned District Judge to consider the petition made for conducting enquiry into the affairs of the respective temples, which is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018, are not legally maintainable. 25. In W.P. (C) No. 29277 of 2023, the petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and to proceed under Section 37 to make proper arrangements for effective management of Kombanad Sree Dharmasastha Temple. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not pointed out the pendency of any application or request, in accordance with law, before the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, in order to attract the provisions under Section 37 of the Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not pointed out the pendency of any application or request, in accordance with law, before the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, in order to attract the provisions under Section 37 of the Act. In such circumstances, the writ of mandamus sought for in W.P. (C) No. 29277 of 2023 is also not legally maintainable. 26. In W.P. (C) No. 29370 of 2023 the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 notice dated 15.03.2023 issued by the Secretary of the 4th respondent Mattannur Municipality, whereby the President and Secretary of the 5th respondent Sree Subrahmanya Kshethra Seva Samithi are required to stop the constructions being made in Pariyaram Sree Subrahmanyaswamy Temple and intimate the same to the office of the Municipality, within 7 days from the date of receipt of that notice, and Ext.P11 notice dated 03.08.2023 issued by the Secretary of the 4th respondent Municipality, whereby the President/Secretary of the 5th respondent Seva Samithi was informed that based on a complaint made by respondents 6 to 9, a local inspection was conducted, in which it was found that unauthorised constructions have been made in the temple premises, which are neither removed nor regularised. The petitioner, who is a third party, cannot challenge Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 notices issued by the Secretary of the 4th respondent Municipality to the office bearers of the 5th respondent Kshethra Seva Samithi. Therefore, a writ of certiorari sought for in W.P. (C) No. 29370 of 2023 to quash Exts.P10 and P11 notices is also not legally maintainable. 27. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.