Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE7H DAYOF OCTOBER201315TH ASWINA, 1935 RP.No. 734 of 2013 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) NO.8955/2013 DATED0307-2013. ........ REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS1AND2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS3AND4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.P.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. T.P.NANDI NAMBOODIRI, AGED71YEARS, PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE, SREE T.T.K. DEVASWOM, THIDIL PULIYAPPAMBU ILLOM, MAZHOOR, PANNIYUR P.O., THALIPARAMBA - 670 141.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TTK DEVASWOM, TALIPARAMBA - 670 141.
3. MR. KURUMATHURILLATHU SHANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPADU, ADVOCATE, THIRUVANGADI P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0110-2013, THE COURT ON0710-2013 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 734 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATEDTHIS THE7H DAYOF OCTOBER, 2013 ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This review petition is at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. It is contended in the review petition that in the light of Section 45(3) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'), the appointment of a fit person consequent on the order passed suspending the hereditary trustees, is the only method and therefore the interpretation given by this Court in the judgment that the other hereditary trustees are entitled for appointment in terms of Ext.P1 scheme, is not justified.
2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, Shri V. Krishna Menon, appearing for the review petitioners, learned Senior Counsel Shri Kylasanatha Pillai, appearing for the first respondent and Shri Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. In the judgment we have considered the effect of Section 47(1) to RP No.734/2013 -2- (3) of the Act which provides for filling up of vacancies in the office of the hereditary trustee. Sub-section (2) specifically refers to filling up of temporary vacancies in such an office by reason of suspension of the hereditary trustee under Section 45. The provision is that the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed and discharge the functions of the trustee until his disability ceases. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that herein, the hereditary trustees were suspended under Sections 45(1) and under Section 45(3) a fit person can be appointed to fill that vacuum to discharge the functions of the trustee. Therefore, Section 47 will not apply.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that Section 47(2) specifically takes in the eventuality of suspension under Section 45 itself and there is no ambiguity in the matter.
5. Having considered the provisions of Sections 45 and 47 of the Act together, we are of the view that the contentions of the review petitioners will have to fail. Section 45 gives power to suspend the hereditary trustees. Section 45
(3) provides as follows: "45. Power to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees.- (1), (2),
(4) and
(5) omitted. RP No.734/2013 -3-
(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 function of the trustee." Of course, it enables the appointment of a fit person. The word 'may' also is important. Section 47(2) of the Act which we have already discussed in the main judgment, reads as follows: "47. Filling up of vacancies in the office of hereditary trustee.-
(1) and
(3) omitted
(2) When a temporary vacancy occurs in such an office by reason of the suspension of the hereditary trustee under section 45, sub-section (1), or by reason of his supersession under section 46, sub-section (3), the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed and discharge the functions of the trustee until his disability ceases." It specifically takes in the eventuality of suspension under Section 45 and it confers right on the next in the line of succession to succeed and discharge the functions of the trustee until his disability ceases. We are of the view that Sections 45 and 47 will have to be read together. If that be so, it can be seen that the appointment of fit person under Section 45(3) can RP No.734/2013 -4- only be till the provisions of Section 47(2) are implemented by appointing the next in the line of succession to succeed and discharge the functions of the trustee until his disability ceases. There may be possibility of administrative delay and other matters while such appointments actually materialises. Till that, Section 45(3) will empower the authority to appoint a fit person to avoid any vacuum with regard to the affairs of the Temple. Therefore, it is not a case where with regard to the exercise of power of suspension and filling up of temporary vacancies, Section 45(3) alone will apply as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioners. These provisions will have to be harmoniously construed and if that be so, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners.
6. There is no apparent error in the judgment and hence the review petition is dismissed.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has sought for an extension of time if this Court is not inclined to accept the pleas of the review petitioners, to comply with the directions in the main judgment. In fact, this Court in the judgment had directed the election of the adhoc managing committee to be completed within a period of one month. It is submitted that a Contempt RP No.734/2013 -5- Case has already been filed by the writ petitioner before this Court which is pending. Since time is requested for compliance of the judgment, we extend the period prescribed in the judgment by one month from today. The review petition is dismissed subject to the above. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) kav/