A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan said, " It is imperative to restore, protect and preserve temples and their properties with utmost care".

 

The subject temple is a unique, ancient and historical one and its area comprises a sprawling of 21.25 acres of land. That apart, it administers and runs a hospital, viz, Parabrahma Super Speciality Hospital & Research Centre, a Nursing College and a Nursing School, to cater to the needs of the general public, the court noted.

 

"It is also an admitted fact that the suit for framing of Scheme for the subject temple is pending before the District Court and stands at the final decree stage. In such circumstances, we feel that it is just and necessary to conduct election under the aegis of a new Administrative Head/ Administrator, for the smooth and effective administration of the subject temple and the institutions thereunder, which proposition has been agreed upon by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties," the bench said.

 

The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and President of the temple situated at Kerala filed civil appeals against two orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam viz one was a final judgment and order of March 02, 2020 and another order of February 07, 2023.

 

According to the averments made in the civil appeals, the management of the temple and the institutions being run under it, such as, super speciality hospital, nursing college, etc are governed by the bye-laws of the temple. As per the Bye-laws, the administration is vested in a system of three-tier elected Committees, viz, Pothubharana Samithi (General Board), Pravarthaka Samithi (Working Committee) and Karya Nirvahana Samithi (Executive Committee).

 

The appellant Nos 1 and 2 were elected as Secretary and President respectively of the Executive Committee in the election held during May 2017 and thereafter, no election had been conducted so far. However, on April 07, 2022, the Executive Committee, which existed till then, was voted out in a no-confidence motion, and a new committee consisting of 11 members, including the appellants, assumed office.

 

In the year 2006, some devotees filed a suit before the 1st Additional District Court, Kollam, seeking to frame a Scheme for administration of the temple and the institutions. By judgment and decree of April 09, 2010, the trial court passed a preliminary decree directing framing a Scheme; and further, directed the parties to file a draft scheme. It was also observed by the trial court that till the Scheme is framed, the administration of the subject temple would continue as per the Bye-laws of the temple.

 

Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the defendant Nos 12 and 13 who were Sthanis (Hereditary Trustees) of the temple, preferred a Regular First Appeal before the High Court, seeking a direction to the trial ourt to make adequate safeguards for them, with respect to their share of amounts and their roles to play, in the proposed scheme.

 

During the pendency of the said RFA, an interim order of October 05, 2010 came to be passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, appointing an Advocate Commissioner B Premnath, for the purpose of counting the offerings in the temple. According to the appellants, the Advocate Commissioner so appointed was only to the limited purpose of counting the offerings in the temple and he had not been given any power to administer the subject temple over and above the Committees or to supervise the Committees at any point of time.

 

By the first impugned order, the High Court disposed of the Regular First Appeal, inter alia, directing the trial court to frame a Scheme within one year for the management of the temple and its institutions and to formulate Rules with respect to their functioning, after giving opportunity to all the parties to produce draft scheme.

 

Further, the High Court appointed Justice A V Ramakrishna Pillai, a retired Judge as the Administrative Head of the temple and the Trust/Managing Committee. The High Court also said that the Administrative Committee (the bodies elected as per the bye laws of the temple) would be under the supervision and full control of the said Administrative Head; until such time the scheme is framed by the trial court; all decisions of the elected bodies shall require to be ratified by the Administrative Head before the decisions are put to implementation; the parties concerned would be at liberty to place within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment, their suggestions before the Administrative Head regarding the draft Scheme, so as to enable the Administrative Head to settle the Scheme through consensus, if it is possible.

 

Seeking a direction to the Administrator to conduct election to elect a Pothu Bharana Samithi of the temple, the Respondent Nos 5 and 31 in the RFA filed an Interlocutory Application.

 

By the second impugned order, the High Court disposed of the said application by removing the elected Executive Committee of the temple and appointing an unelected Committee comprising persons of its choice contrary to the Bye-laws of the temple and the prevailing customs.

 

Being aggrieved, the appellants who were the elected Secretary and President of the Executive Committee, approached the Supreme Court with the instant appeals.

 

After hearing the parties, the bench noted it was evident from the records that the administration of the temple and the institutions thereunder was governed by the bye-laws of the temple. Clause 9 of the bye laws made it clear that the term of office of the elected General Body was five years from the date of the election. As per Clause 11, the term of the other elected bodies was coterminus with that of the General Body. Concededly, after the election in May 2017, no election had been conducted so far.

 

The appellants expressed serious grievances about the functioning of the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court. They contended the Administrative Head did not understand the ground realities and the emergent situation prevailing over the temple and its institutions; that he refused to meet the elected representatives and accede to the decisions taken by them.

 

They also claimed he had not even visited the subject temple, which wa essentially required to resolve the problems and streamline the development.

 

They also alleged that the Administrative Head had been issuing orders without proper consultation with the elected bodies and he had gone to the extent of appointing a Monitoring Committee with the assistance of Advocate Commissioner for maintenance and general issues relating to the administration of the hospital, nursing college and school.

 

The other side stoutly refuted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that steps were only taken for administration of the temple until scheme was framed and elections were held for the Samithis.

 

The bench said it was not inclined to go into the contentions / issues raised by the appellants at this stage as the High Court had granted liberty to the parties to raise all the contentions before the trial court.

 

"At the same time, the fact remains that there are serious disputes in administering and managing the subject temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the alleged Executive Committee," the bench said.

 

However, the bench appointed the Administrative Head to conduct the elections and complete the process within four months strictly in accordance with the bye laws of the temple.

 

"In view of the order thus being passed by us, the Administrative Head /Administrator / Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court, ceases to exist and hence, they are directed to hand over the charge / accounts to the newly appointed Administrative Head / Administrator with immediate effect," the bench ordered.

 

The court further directed that the newly Appointed Administrator/ Administrative Head would manage the affairs of the Temple/Samithis until the elections are held and should handover the charge to the elected body.

 

It also ordered the trial court to complete the final decree proceedings in the suit filed for framing of Scheme, as expeditiously as possible.

 

Case Title: Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr Vs G Vijayanathakurup And Ors