ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. The Travancore Devaswom Board has filed this DBA seeking permission to transfer the officers who are presently working in various posts at Sabarimala, Pamba, Nilakkal and Erumeli on completion of their tenure, and post substitutes to their posts as per Annexure A1 Board order dated 22.06.2024. The affidavit dated 26.06.2024 filed in support of this DBA is one sworn to by the Secretary of the Board. 2. In paragraphs 3 to 6 of the affidavit dated 26.06.2024, the credentials of the officers who are proposed to be transferred as Executive Officer, Sabarimala, Assistant Executive Officer, Sabarimala and as the Administrative Officers of Sabarimala Devaswom, Pamba Devaswom, Nilakkal Devaswom and Erumeli Devaswom have been furnished. The names of those 6 officers, the post presently held by them and the post to which they are proposed to be transferred are furnished in paragraph 7 of that affidavit. The reports dated 15.06.2024 and 21.06.2024 of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police), Travancore Devaswom Board on the credentials of those officers are marked as Annexures A2 and A3. 3. On 28.06.2024, when this DBA came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the 1st respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions on the aspects pointed out by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in Annexures A2 and A3 reports. 4. On 04.07.2024, when this matter came up for consideration, we perused the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel and the written instructions of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, vide letter No.CT.217/24/TDB/VIG dated 04.07.2024, to the learned Standing Counsel. Along with a memo dated 04.07.2024, the learned Standing Counsel has placed on record a copy of that letter dated 04.07.2024. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that this DBA is filed pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 01.08.2012 in DBAR No.16 of 2010. 7. 6. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that this DBA is filed pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 01.08.2012 in DBAR No.16 of 2010. 7. The learned Standing Counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the order dated 01.08.2012 in DBAR No.16 of 2010, which reads thus; “Having regard to different aspects touching the management of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, Pampa and Erumeli, including the fact that huge amounts of resources are being managed by those establishments, we are of the view that there is a need to increase the bench mark for transparency of handling those establishments. One mode is to ensure that transfers and postings to those temples are done with information to the High Court. Insofar as the selection of Melsanthi, Keezhsanthi, etc., there is already a situation in place where the High Court, though does not get involved in the selection, has a supervisory eye. We feel that it is abundantly necessary that transfers and postings of all officers to those temples, except clerical staff, should be done only with the approval of the High Court, though the persons are to be identified by the Board. To put this in operation forthwith, it is directed that the identity of persons who have been transferred to Sabarimala in the year 2012 shall be placed before the High Court along with a short report of the track record of each such person. We also need to be told whether the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board has any role in assessing or in the matter of identifying the officers to be sent to Sabarimala Sannidhanam, Pampa and Erumeli. Insofar as the officers who are now posted therein are concerned, reports shall be placed on record in terms of the aforesaid direction, without fail, by 16.08.2012. It is also clarified that if the Board has any objection to the procedure suggested above, it will be open for it to file an affidavit in that regard.” (underline supplied) 8. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. In view of the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 ME and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 ME shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. Sabarimala, Pampa, Nilakkal and Erumeli Devaswoms are incorporated Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, which are under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 9. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with the duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 10. As per Section 24 of the Act, which deals with the maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of the Devaswom Fund, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 11. As per Section 31 of the Act, which deals with the management of Devaswoms, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 12. 12. In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 1975 KLT 55 ] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. 13. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. 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 the 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, 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. 14. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. 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 has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 15. 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 has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 15. DBP No.2 of 2022 was registered suo motu, by the proceedings dated 31.01.2022, based on a news item that appeared in the Mathrubhumi online edition dated 30.01.2022 alleging huge corruption in the submission of fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House. As per that news report, top officials are behind disbanding the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The move was spearheaded by those fearing arrest if the fake bills submitted at Sabarimala Guest House and the irregularities in the toilet construction came out. Four officers, including two Sub Inspectors, were removed from the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. That DBP was disposed of by the order dated 14.02.2022 - Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] - by a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, with the directions contained in paragraph 33 of that order. 16. In view of the law laid down in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala, Pampa, Nilakkal and Erumeli Devaswoms, which are incorporated Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty-bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala, Pampa, Nilakkal and Erumeli Devaswoms and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temples under those Devaswoms according to its usage. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held in Ram Mohan Das [ 1975 KLT 55 ]. Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. 17. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held in Ram Mohan Das [ 1975 KLT 55 ]. Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. 17. In view of the law laid down in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] the Travancore Devaswom Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala, Pampa, Nilakkal and Erumeli Devaswoms are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The deity being a perpetual minor, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 18. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala filed SSCR No.11 of 2022, pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ]. That SSCR was disposed of by the order dated 27.06.2023 [Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others – 2023:KER:41764], wherein it was held that the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in the report dated 07.07.2022 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee, which is one made based on Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing cannot be brushed aside by the Devaswom Commissioner, who is the disciplinary authority, or by the Board, without stating cogent reasons. The Devaswom Commissioner, while submitting his report before the Board, and the Board, while passing orders based on the recommendation of the Devaswom Commissioner, has to state cogent reasons for brushing aside the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The order passed by the Board should reflect proper application of mind, which has to be manifest from the order itself. Paragraphs 20 to 23 of that order read thus; “20. As borne out from Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, Karuppuswamy, the District Police Chief, Idukki, who stayed in the Guest House on 30.12.2021, had food from the police mess. Paragraphs 20 to 23 of that order read thus; “20. As borne out from Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, Karuppuswamy, the District Police Chief, Idukki, who stayed in the Guest House on 30.12.2021, had food from the police mess. However, as per the rough register maintained by Vishnu Prakash, Karuppuswamy had food at the Guest House. Similarly, as per the rough register, in November and December, 2021 and January, 2022, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, had food at the Guest House on days on which he had not even visited Sabarimala on account of court sittings in the Additional District Court, Kollam. Though the Special Commissioner was not at Sabarimala, the room earmarked for him functions as his office, in which his Secretary Balachandran Pillai and the Devaswom guard attached to that office will be present, and they are provided with food at the Guest House. In the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Wing, it was revealed that Vishnu Prakash failed to maintain a proper register in the Guest House. Therefore, in the reports of the Vigilance Wing, it was recommended to take action against Vishnu Prakash. Based on Annexures I and II reports, the 5th respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer submitted report No.PTN 08/22/TDB/VIG dated 07.07.2022 before the Board, wherein he has recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Vishnu Prakash. The said recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer has been referred to in paragraph 2 of Annexure R3(a) order dated 30.01.2023. However, based on the recommendation made by the 4th respondent Devaswom Commissioner in his report No.ROC 16995/22/Est.-A dated 11.11.2022 to close the proceedings initiated against Vishnu Prakash giving strict warning, the Board has decided in Annexure R3(a) order to close the proceedings initiated against Vishnu Prakash by censuring him. 21. In view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. The recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in the report dated 07.07.2022 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee, which is one made based on Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, cannot be brushed aside by the Devaswom Commissioner, who is the disciplinary authority, or by the Board, without stating cogent reasons. The Devaswom Commissioner, while submitting his report before the Board, and the Board, while passing orders based on the recommendation of the Devaswom Commissioner, has to state cogent reasons for brushing aside the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The order passed by the Board should reflect proper application of mind, which has to be manifest from the order itself. 22. The accounts of the Board are subjected to audit annually, as per the requirements of Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, by the auditors appointed by this Court under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act. Maintaining a rough register for the Guest House during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season and entering the name of the guests in the accommodation register later, for the purpose of statutory audit, is a serious irregularity on the part of the employee who was in charge of the Guest House. The statutory audit of the annual accounts of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 is pending on account of the delay on the part of the Board in furnishing the annual accounts, which was the subject matter in DBAR No.4 of 2022, which was disposed of by the order dated 24.05.2022, and DBAR No.8 of 2022, which was disposed of by the order dated 13.04.2023. It is for the additional 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit to take note of the above aspects while conducting the statutory audit of the accounts of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1197 ME (2021-22). 23. It is for the additional 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit to take note of the above aspects while conducting the statutory audit of the accounts of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1197 ME (2021-22). 23. In the above circumstances, this SSCR is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the 5th respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in his report No.PTN 08/22/TDB/VIG dated 07.07.2022, taking note of the law laid down hereinbefore at paragraph 21, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 19. In the decision in Lalu G.R. v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:52344] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with a writ petition in which the challenge was against an order dated 10.08.2020 (Ext.P4 in that writ petition) of the Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby a decision has been taken to drop further investigation in the issue relating to the collection of funds by Thiruvithamcore Devaswom Employees Confederation, the 7th respondent therein, from the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board as well as the contractors engaged by the Devaswom Board for its activities and utilising a portion of the said amount for purchasing land and building for the Employees Confederation at Nanthancode in Thiruvananthapuram. While setting aside the order dated 10.08.2020, the Division Bench held that the decision taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board in the said order to drop further investigation into the issue relating to the collection of funds by the Employees Confederation from the employees of the Board as well as the contractors engaged by the Board for its activities and utilising a portion of the said amount for purchasing land and building for the Employees Confederation at Nanthancode, brushing aside the report dated 10.05.2020 of the Vigilance Wing of the Board, cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, that writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 10.08.2020, and the Board was directed to reconsider the matter, taking note of the recommendation made in the report dated 10.05.2020 of its Vigilance Wing, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:41764], with notice to the parties and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. 20. In the instant case, Annexures A2 and A3 reports dated 15.06.2024 and 21.06.2024 of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board contain no adverse remarks against the officers, who are Serial Nos.1 and 6 in the list in paragraph 7 of the affidavit dated 26.06.2024 filed in support of this DBA, namely, Sri. B. Murari Babu, who is proposed to be transferred as the Executive Officer, Sabarimala and Sri. P.R. Sreeshankar, who is proposed to be transferred as the Administrative Officer, Erumeli Devaswom. Therefore, having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to grant permission to the Travancore Devaswom Board for the transfer and posting of Sri.B. Murari Babu as the Executive Officer, Sabarimala and Sri. P.R. Sreeshankar as the Administrative Officer, Erumeli Devaswom, who are Serial Nos.1 and 5 in Annexure A1 Board order dated 22.06.2024. Considering the urgency pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the Board is permitted to issue posting orders to the above two officers, with immediate effect. 21. In so far as the officers who are Serial Nos.2 to 5 in the list in paragraph 7 of the affidavit dated 26.06.2024 filed in support of this DBA are concerned, Annexures A2 and A3 reports dated 15.06.2024 and 21.06.2024 of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board contain adverse remarks against them, who are Serial Nos.2 to 4 and 6 in Annexure A1 Board order dated 22.06.2024. The said Board order does not even refer to Annexures A2 and A3 reports dated 15.06.2024 and 21.06.2024 of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. 22. In the matter of transfer and posing of officers in Sabarimala, Pamba, Nilakkal and Erumeli, if the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer contains adverse remarks, it cannot be brushed aside by the Travancore Devaswom Board, without stating cogent reasons. 22. In the matter of transfer and posing of officers in Sabarimala, Pamba, Nilakkal and Erumeli, if the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer contains adverse remarks, it cannot be brushed aside by the Travancore Devaswom Board, without stating cogent reasons. The orders passed by the Board, on the transfer and posting of officers in the said Devaswoms, shall contain cogent reasons for brushing aside the adverse remarks of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer and such orders should reflect proper application of mind, which should be manifest from that order itself. 23. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to take a fresh decision on the transfer and posting of the Assistant Executive Officer, Sabarimala and the Administrative Officers of Sabarimala, Pampa and Nilakkal Devaswoms, after considering the reports of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer and taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ], Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:41764] and Lalu G.R. v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:52344]. The decision taken by the Board shall be placed before this Court for approval, in terms of the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 01.08.2012 in DBAR No.16 of 2010.