GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. C K RAJAN
LAWS(SC)-2003-8-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 14,2003

GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE Appellant
VERSUS
C.K.RAJAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GANESH TAMBEKAR V. LAKHMIRAM GOVINDRAM [REFERRED]
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ TRIYAMBAK LAL GOSWAMI SHN CILANSHYAMLAIJI TILKAYAT SHRI GOWINDLAIJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
YOGENDRA NATH NASKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
STATE OF KERALA VS. N M THOMAS [REFERRED AT 951] (PARA 38) 36.]
MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA BOMBAY VS. ABDULBHAI FAIZULLABHAI [REFERRED]
CHARLES SOBRAJ VS. SUPUT CENTRAL JAIL TIHAR NEW DELHI [REFERRED]
MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI VS. RANI JETHMALANI [REFERRED]
HUSSAINARA KHATOON 1 VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION REGD SINDRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
S P GUPTA V M TARKUNDE J L KALRA IQBAL M CHAGLA MISS LILY THOMAS A RAJAPPA UNION OF INDIA D N PANDEY R PRASAD SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK [REFERRED]
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY PRABHAT MANDAL VS. PRABHAT MANDAL REGD ANDHERI:PRABHAT MANDAL:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [REFERRED]
SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL DR MAHESH MADHAV GOSAVI VS. MAHESH MADHAV GOSAVI:SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL [REFERRED]
D C WADHWA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
SACHIDANAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
RAKESH CHANDRA NARAYAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
CHARAN LAL SAHU RAKESH SHROUTI RAJKUMAR KESWANI NASRIN BI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [REFERRED]
PANNALAL BANSILAL PITTI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE VARANASI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
KANYAKA PARAMESWARI ANNA SATRAM COMMITTEE VS. COMMISSIONER H R C AND E [REFERRED]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NURUDDIN MALLICK [REFERRED]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED]
A P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. PROF M V NAYUDU RETD [REFERRED]
M C MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH [REFERRED]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION REGD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED]
ROOP KUMAR VS. MOHAN THEDANI [REFERRED]
KAPILA HINGORANI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL VS. B D AGARWAL [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

ABHIMANYU RATHOR VS. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
IRANNA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2024-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAN VS. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2004-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
AUGUSTIAN K.T. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
V.P.DENNY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMAHAL PAHAD BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
B.A. MISRI VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2013-10-21] [REFERRED]
SANJITA ROY VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND 4ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN GUPTA VS. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR AND OTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AFZAL MALIK VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2009-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH BAIN DSOUZA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 2; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-628] [REFERRED]
NANASAHEB VASANTRAO JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
P MOHAN RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2008-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
NISHANT KHATRI VS. DELHI HIGH COURT [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-142] [REFERRED TO]
MRF MAZDOOR SANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
P NARAYANA REDDY VS. GOVT OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2010-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
YELAMARTHI SARATH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
NEW SUN EDUCATION SOCIETY REGD ALIGARH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-53] [REFERRED.TO]
LOWER BHAVANI FARMERS FEDERATION VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-1035] [REFERRED TO]
KARMA THINLAY LAMA VS. THE STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2014-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
M.SIDDIQ VS. MAHANT SURESH DAS [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
Rabindra Kumar Bisoi VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2011-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYALAL VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUMAR PATEL VS. MADHYA PRADESH PASHU CHIKITSA [LAWS(MPH)-2011-7-145] [REFERRED]
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
I NELSON VS. KALLAYAM PASTORATE [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT POORNATHRAYISHA SEVA SANGHAM VS. K THILAKAN KAVANAL [LAWS(SC)-2005-2-131] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. JOHRI MAL [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-114] [REFERRED TO]
PRINTERS MYSORE LIMITED VS. M A RASHEED [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SOOD VS. GAJENDRA SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-228] [REFERRED TO]
N. KUMARASAMY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-803] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA PRAKASH MISHRA VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-278] [REFERRED TO]
MANORANJAN PARIDA VS. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
KUKUMINA CONSTRUCTION P LTD VS. SUB REGISTRAR CUM STAMP COLLECTOR KHURDA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
M. S.VINEETH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-213] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. T VELLAICHAMY NADAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2019-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETING SHRAMA VS. KISAN BABURAO HAZARE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
J AND K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2009-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
FIFTH PILLAR INDIA VS. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-279] [REFERRED TO]
B S N JOSHI AND SONS LTD VS. NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MD BPL LIMITED VS. S P GURURAJ [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
N K PRASADA VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-63] [REFERRED TO </RC>]
LALVULLIEN VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SULAIMAN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
GOODNIGHT L. SYIEMLIEH VS. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2011-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
AZAD SINGH SOLANKI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP MAITY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR SAHU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SUBBHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
ADV. AIRES RODRIGUES VS. COMMUNIDADE OF SERULA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI SURYA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-416] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(GJH)-2006-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
CHAWALI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-481] [REFERRED TO]
TANYA SHARMA VS. JUDGE CHAWLA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-315] [REFERRED TO]
CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR VS. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-120] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT MINT & ALLIED CHEMICALS VS. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE BHAWANI PAPER MILLS LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
ELMAS FERNANDES VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHIKKUMAR OCHHAVLAL GANDHI & 4 OTHER(S) VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2019-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
ANEESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-8-357] [REFERRED TO]
R. G. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-1-204] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
JASKARAN SINGH BRAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
VAIRAESWARAN VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
COAL INDIA LTD VS. SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVAT KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
J KANNAN AND M SANTHOSHKUMAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-674] [REFERRED]
MYTHRI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VS. SECRETARY, [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU SABANATHA OLI SIVACHARIYAR VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-197] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIR CHAND BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORAION VS. RAJESH KUMAR [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN PARMALIYA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY JAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPESH SINGH BENIWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
J ANBAZHAGAN MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CHEPAUK VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-733] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA PANT VS. DEEPAK RUWALI [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
M. KEETHANJALI VS. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL HEALTH SERVICES MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-265] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU HEALTH EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-469] [REFERRED TO]
KINGLAND THONGNI VS. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2013-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
HUMLOG TRUST PATNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
S MANOKARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-287] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-123] [REFERRED TO]
A. KUTTRALINGAM VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
MICHAEL VARGHESE VS. HONOURABLE SHRI PINARAYI VIJAYAN, CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
SOMAN K. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-204] [REFERRED TO]
ZEE TELEFILMS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG CO LTD VS. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENT ACTION GROUP [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHAN VERMA VS. STATE OF H.P [LAWS(HPH)-2012-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CRAFT VILLAGE TRUST VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
DINKAR KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
ROMESH CHANDER VS. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2007-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
THE ADANI HARBOUR SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT NAYYAR VS. SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI SHRINE BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAN SULEMAN QURESHI VS. MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR & RECONSTRUCTION BOARD & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-223] [REFERRED]
CHHABINATH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR SONI S/O LATE RAMJI PRASAD SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORATE ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
QUAZI MOHD NAJMUDDIN HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT NEGI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2004-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PRASAD VS. L D A LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
JANAK N. VYAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-392] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
NOBLE IMPORT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
REHANA BEGUM VS. MASARATHUNNISA [LAWS(APH)-2010-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
E PEDDI REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2007-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
GOOLROKH M.GUPTA VS. BURJOR PARDIWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-542] [REFERRED TO]
PACS CHEMICALS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
T.M.D. RAFI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2019-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR BHATRA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANIPUR PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
ALL MANIPUR JUDICIAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
J LOGANATHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER VS. ARUN KUMAR BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
TENNYDARD M. MARAK VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2013-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
TIKENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MECOFED AND OTHERS [LAWS(MEGH)-2013-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA VS. GOVIND SINGH BATHYAL [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
VINEESH M. V. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-73] [REFERRED TO]
LAGANDEO RAY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR ARVIND VS. BIHAR CRICKET ASSOCIATION [LAWS(PAT)-2022-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
M M DEEPA VS. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM [LAWS(KER)-2005-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. UNNI [LAWS(KER)-2012-12-232] [REFERRED TO]
BALU GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-462] [REFERRED TO]
SOLOMON THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
C.L.ANTO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMANYU SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL SINGH RAJPUT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
GURVINDER SINGH CHADHA VS. CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2015-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALRAO JAMDAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-253] [REFERRED TO]
M P GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2005-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
GAYCHING BHUTIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2008-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN KAMBLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT D PADIWAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL CHANDRA DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
AJAI KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAI PAL VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
K SRINIVASULU VS. GOVERNMENT OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2010-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
G. RAMA MOHAN RAO AND ANOTHER VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL, MARKETING &AMP; COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
MACHANI NAGARAJU VS. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
MANMEET KAUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-275] [REFERRED TO]
R.P. KHOSLA VS. HONBLE COMPANY LAW BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-316] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LANKA VS. RISHI DIXIT [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO LTD VS. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-45] [RELIED ON]
B.ANIL VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
M. ANNADURAI VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
K. ABDUL VAHABUDHEEN VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-144] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAMBHARNATH TIWARI VS. RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-418] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
BIJESH KUMAR M VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
C.M.SUBRAMANIAN S/O MANIKKAN VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, CHEMBUKKAVU [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-228] [REFERRED TO]
KHUMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2007-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
N Veerasamy VS. Union of India [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-213] [REFERRED TO]
S SUBRAMANIAM BALAJI AND ANOTHER VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-387] [REFERRED TO]
NRUSINGH CHARAN MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI SINGH AND EIGHT ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
NISHAKAR KHATUA & FIVE ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA & FOUR ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2011-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA NETWORKS WELFARE TRUST VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(ORI)-2012-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VYAS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2015-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF MHOW VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2009-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVATAR SINGH JADON VS. STATE OF MP & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-271] [REFERRED]
PRAMOD NAUTIYAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2015-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
P G NARAYANAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2005-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
Sundargarh Citizens Forum VS. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
MSP SPONGE IRON LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2011-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
P.KUMARAVEL VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-286] [REFERRED TO]
V.ANNARAJA VS. SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-399] [REFERRED TO]
ROHAN VISHWANATH KHEDEKAR VS. DEVGAD JAMSANDE NAGARPANCHAYAT [LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR MAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
PROFESSOR G K RAI VS. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
SHERVANI ZAKIRA KHANAM AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
P V S V PRASADA RAO VS. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(APH)-2005-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN SANSTHA SOCIAL WELFARE ORGANIZATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-252] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT MARU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-112] [REFERED TO]
MAHANAGAR GHAZIABAD CHETNA MUNCH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL LITERACY MISSION AUTHORITY VS. JANARDAN MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-11-129] [REFERRED TO]
S R COLD STORAGE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
PAARDARSHITA PUBLIC WELFARE FOUNDATION VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION BOMBAY VS. DEVKALA CONSUTANCY SERVICE [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MECOFED VS. TIKENDER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-38] [REFERRED TO]
NO.G/115328N, RFN/GD KARAM SINGH VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
BABU OOMEN THOMAS VS. SATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH SOLANKI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. BIJESH KUMAR M. [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-229] [REFERRED TO]
R. PRAKASH VS. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE VATTUKULAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-374] [REFERRED TO]
SHINTO KURIAKOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-177] [REFERRED TO]
HARESH TEKCHAND RAISINGHANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-173] [REFERRED TO]
DIYORABHANDERI CORPORATION VS. SARINE TECHNOLOGIES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
TIME ADS & PUBLICITY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) [LAWS(KER)-2014-7-214] [REFERRED TO]
VENUGOPAL VS. ANEESH KUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-141] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND SINGH BATHYAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SULAIMAN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY JAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-227] [REFERRED]
SORNAMMAL AND COMPANY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-681] [REFERRED TO]
V S SIVAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
JOBY SEBASTIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-222] [REFERRED TO]
MRINALL SHASHI SHEKHAR VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR RAI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL RANJAN MUKERJEE VS. NIRMAL RANJAN MUKERJEE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-300] [REFERRED]
RUSTOM KHUSRO SAPURJI GHANDHI VS. AMRIT ABHIJAT [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SMARAK SAMITI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
ASEM BIMOLA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2008-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
NUTAN THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-204] [REFERRED TO]
BALASORE TRANSPORT VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHET VS. NOOR AHMED SHERIFF [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
MITTHU LAL JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-8-175] [REFERRED]
DEVENDRA PRAKASH MISHRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA JUGRAN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2015-12-76] [REFERRED]
G.VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
K K BHALLA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS VS. ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN AND OTHERS ETC [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-58] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.)SCOPE and ambit of a public interest litigation in the matter of management of a temple governed by the provisions of a statutory enactment is the primal question involved in these appeals. Introductory remarks:
(2.)SREE Krishna Temple, Guruvayur draws millions of people all over the country. This ancient temple of unique importance is worshipped and held in great reverence by lacs of devotees. The temple owns extensive movable and immovable properties and endowments. It has its own heritages and traditions.
The State of Kerala having regard to importance of the said temple with a view to make suitable provision for the proper administration of the Guruvayur Devaswom enacted the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 (Act 14 of 1978) (for short 'the Act'). The management of the temple is carried out in terms of the provisions of the said Act. Relevant provisions of the statute:

Some of the relevant provisions of the said Act inter alia are:

"6. Dissolution and supersession of Committee:

1) If, in the opinion of the government, the Committee is not competent to perform or makes default in performing the duties imposed on it under this Act or abuses or exceeds its powers; the government may after such inquiry as may be necessary, by notification in the gazette, supersede the Committee for such period, not exceeding six months, as the government may deem fit.

2) Before issuing a notification under sub-section (1) the government shall communicate to the Committee the grounds on which they propose to do so, fix a reasonable time for the Committee to show cause against the proposal and consider its explanations and objections, if any

3) Any member of the Committee may, within a period of one month from the date of publication of the notification under sub- section (1), institute a suit in the court to set aside the notification

4) Where the Committee is superseded under this section the Commissioner shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee until the expiry of the period of supersession. Provided that the period during which the Committee remains superseded shall not have the effect of extending the maximum term of office of a member nominated under clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-section
(1) of section 4 beyond a period of two years. 17. Powers and duties of administrator
(1) The administrator shall be the secretary to the Committee and its chief executive officer and shall, subject to the control of the Committee, have powers to carry out its decisions in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) The administrator shall arrange for the proper collection of offerings made in the temple.

(3) The administrator shall have power to incur expenditure not exceeding five thousand rupees to meet unforeseen contingencies during the interval between two meetings of the Committee.
18. Establishment schedule:
1) The administrator may, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, prepare and submit to the Committee a schedule setting forth the duties, designations and grades of the officers and employees who may in his opinion constitute the establishment of the temple and embodying his proposals with regard to the salaries and allowances payable to them.

2) The Committee shall forward the schedule submitted to it under sub-section (1) with its recommendations thereon to the Commissioner for approval.

3) The Commissioner shall, after considering the recommendations of the Committee, approve such schedule either without modification or with such modifications as he deems necessary, and there upon such schedule as approved by the Commissioner shall come into force.

4) No change shall be effected in the schedule except with the approval of the Commissioner.

5) Subject to such exceptions as the Committee may by general or special order direct, the officers and employees of the Devaswom in the service of the Devaswom immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue as such, and the conditions of their service shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act.

6) A person who does not profess the Hindu Religion or believe in temple worship shall be disqualified for being appointed as, or for being, an officer or employee of the Devaswom.

23. Accounts and Audit: 1) The Committee shall keep regular accounts of all receipts and disbursements. 2) The accounts of the Devaswom shall be subject to concurrent audit, that is to say, the audit shall take place as and when expenditure is incurred. 3) The audit shall be made by auditors appointed in the prescribed manner, who shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860).

24. Authority to whom audit report is to be submitted: After completing the audit for any year or shorter period or for any transactions as he deems fit, the auditor shall send a report to the Commissioner

33. Power of government to call for records and pass orders: 1) The government may call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or of the Committee in respect of any proceeding, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or application to the court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves that the provisions of this Act have not been violated or the interests of the Devaswom have been safeguarded and if, in any case, it appears to the government that any decision or order passed in such proceeding has violated the provisions of this Act or is not in the interest of the Devaswom, they may modify, annual or reverse such decision or order or remit such decision or order for reconsideration: Provided that the government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations. 2) The government may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of their powers under sub- section (1) in respect thereof.

36. Removal of difficulties: If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the government may, as occasion may require, by order do anything not inconsistent with this Act or the rules made thereunder, which appears to them necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty.

38. Rules: 1) The government may, by notification in the gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. 2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for - (a) the publication of the administration report under section 13; (b) the custody of the records and properties of the Devaswom, (c) the payment of contributions towards the leave allowances, pension and provident fund of the administrator; (d) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed under this Act. 3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the legislative assembly while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, the legislative assembly makes any modification in the rule or decides that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such 'modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."

(3.)THE State of Kerala in exercise of its power conferred under section 38 of the Act made rules known as THE Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 10 of the Rules provides for publication of administration report and is in the following terms:
"

1). Committee to submit administration report: THE Committee shall prepare and submit to the Commissioner, a report on the administration of the affairs of the Devaswom relating to each calendar year within three months of the completion of the year.

2) THE Commissioner shall forward such report with his comments to government within 30 days of its receipt by him.

3) THE administration report shall among other things contain details about, (i) the working of the Act, (ii) the income and expenditure, (iii) the amenities provided to the worshippers, (iv) the works undertaken, (v) the festivals conducted, (vi) special features or incidents during the year, (vii) financial position, (viii) working of subordinate temples and other institutions under the management of the Devaswom and (ix) such other matters of public interest.

4) THE report shall be published on the notice board of the Devaswom and in the Kerala Gazette.

5) Abstract of the report shall be published at least in one Malayalam daily having wide circulation in the area."

The statutory provisions contained in the said Act and the rules framed thereunder are of wide amplitude as would appear from the following:

(a) Section 5C read with section 5(3)(c) of the Act read with section 5(4) permits the State government to initiate proceedings against, and remove, any member of the Managing Committee if they are satisfied that he has been guilty of corruption or misconduct in the administration of the temple;

(b) Section 6 permits the State government to dissolve and supersede the Managing Committee as a whole for incompetence or default in performing its duties imposed on it under section 10 of the Act after giving it an opportunity to show cause;

(c) Section 13 read with rule 10 permits the monitoring of the Managing Committees functioning by requiring it to submit and public a report on the administration of the affairs of the temple;

(d) Section 23 read with rule 17 provides for the Committee keeping regular accounts of receipts and disbursements and concurrence audit of those accounts, i.e., an audit that takes as and when an expenditure is incurred, by auditors appointed in the prescribed manner;

(e) Section 25 provides that the auditor shall specify in its report all cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or failure to recover money or rather properties to the Devaswom or loss or waste of money or other property thereof, caused by neglect or misconduct;

(f) Section 26(2) permits the Commissioner appointed under section 2(b) of the Act to pass an order of surcharge against the Managing Committee or any officer or employee if he is satisfied that they are guilty of misappropriation or wilful waste or of gross neglect resulting in loss to the temple after giving them an opportunity to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed; and

(g) Under section 33, the State government in turn is empowered to call for and modify, annul or reverse decision of the Commissioner or of the Managing Committee after calling for and examining the record if the government is satisfied that the decision has violated the provisions of the Act or is not in the interest of the temple after giving a reasonable opportunity to any party that may be prejudiced by such order. Genesis of the public interest litigation:



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.