K. Vinod Chandran, J—The above writ petition is filed by the Malabar Devaswom Board seeking police protection, to the officers of the Board including the Executive Officer appointed to the Sree Parthasarathy Temple, Guruvayur, other employees and the worshipers visiting the Temple for offering prayers, from respondents 3 to 6 and their supporters.
2. The dispute is essentially between a Kshethra Bharana Sangham, which was in management of the affairs of the Temple and the Devaswom Board. The Temple is one declared as a religious institution falling under Section 6(17) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [for brevity, the Act of 1951], which declaration was made by Ext.P1 order of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. The Deputy Commissioner was also directed to frame a scheme of administration providing adequate representation to the Bharana Sangham, who are represented by the party respondents herein. Till such scheme is framed, the Area Committee, Malappuram was directed to appoint a single trustee for administering the Temple. The President and Secretary of the Sree Parthasarathy Temple Bharana Sangham was also directed to handover charge of accounts, bank pass book, valuables and utensils with all records to the single trustee. Ext.P1 order was passed on 23.05.2016.
3. The order of the Commissioner was challenged in a writ petition, which concluded with Ext.P2 judgment. The direction to appoint a single trustee and for handing over the administration at Serial Nos.4 & 5 of Ext.P1 order was set aside. The Bharana Sangham was continued and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to frame the scheme looking at the existing bye-laws. The contesting respondents did not respond nor did they produce the Bye-laws. A scheme was framed, which was challenged in another writ petition, in which Ext.P5 judgment was passed. Ext.P5 noticed that against Ext.P2, review petitions were filed and there was a challenge before the Hon''''''''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''''''''ble Supreme Court noticing the review dismissed the SLP. The review petitions were also rejected reserving the right of the Sangham to challenge the scheme before the Civil Court. A civil suit was filed, against Ext.P1 order, as O.S. No.60 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Chavakkad. An application was filed to restore status quo ante. The same was rejected by Ext.P6.
4. The Scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner also was challenged in the suit. The Executive Officer appointed under the scheme issued orders in implementation of the scheme, which was challenged in WP(C) No.15601 of 2017. Initially ''''''''status quo ante'''''''' was ordered as an interim measure in the writ petition. This indicates that possession was taken over by the Executive Officer. The review petitions were rejected observing that the observations in Ext.P2 would not govern the adjudication by a civil Court. While dismissing WP(C) No.15601 of 2017, the Division Bench noticed with dismay the conduct of the petitioners before the Supreme Court, who styled themselves as not being parties in the writ petition. Even when the writ petition was being heard the Commissioner had placed on record the measures taken by the Board to streamline the affairs of the temple. The temple was stated to have been taken over on 26.04.2017.
5. The members of the Sangham had also perpetrated illegalities in so far as obstructing the Executive Officer and preventing him from carrying on his duties. Later as per interim order in the writ petition, the Sangham was given possession. The writ petition was dismissed leaving the parties to ventilate their grievances in the suit filed, by Ext.P5 dated 16.09.2017. Ext.P7 indicates that the Executive Officer had in his possession the keys of the lockers and bhandaram and had with Police help, on 21.09.2017 attempted to avoid the interference, in the management of the temple, by the Sangham. It is after this that I.A. No.890 of 2017 filed in OS No.60 of 2016, for restoring ''''''''status quo ante'''''''', was decided by the Civil Court and rejected by Ext.P6 dated 06.10.2017. Against the rejection order at Ext.P6, FAO No.181 of 2017 is filed, which is pending before this Court.
6. We pertinently notice that the claim in the IA filed before the Civil Court, was for restoration of status quo ante; which belie the argument of the Sangham that the management and possession of the temple was taken over forcibly after the interim order of 01.11.2017. We also do not find from Ext.P7 any admission, as argued by the contesting respondents, that there was no occupation of the temple premises by the Executive Officer. The status quo order granted in WP(C) No.15601 of 2017 stood vacated with the dismissal of the writ petition by Ext.P5. Subsequently, the application filed for restoration of ''''''''status quo ante'''''''' in the Civil Court was also rejected. If the Bharana Sangham was in occupation, there was no reason to pray for restoration of ''''''''status quo ante''''''''.
7. On the aforesaid facts, the Devaswom Board approached this Court for police protection with the aforesaid writ petition. An interim order was granted on 01.11.2017 in the following manner:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
2. Even though time has been sought for by respondents 3 and 4 to file a counter affidavit, having regard to the submissions made by the parties, especially the learned Government Pleader, that on one occasion, respondents 3 and 4 and their men had locked the temple from inside, we feel that an order should be passed to ensure that the atmosphere in the temple is not vitiated.
3. Therefore, we direct that in the event any one of the contesting respondents resort to any illegalities in the premises of the temple, it is open to the 7th respondent to report the matter to the second respondent, who thereupon shall take action for preventing any breach of peace."
8. Admittedly the Executive Officer of the Devaswom Board is in occupation of the Temple as of now. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the party respondents, who represent the Bharana Sangham would contend that such possession was taken over on the basis of the interim order. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that this court has the power to rectify, the illegality occasioned on a misreading of the interim order, and could restore the possession to the Bharana Sangham, especially since there is a clear misapplication of the direction in the interim order. At the time when the interim order was passed, the Board was not in occupation and the Bharana Sangham was in occupation is the compelling plea raised. It is also pointed out that Ext.P7 complaint filed by the Executive Officer itself would indicate that they were not in occupation. The claim of the Bharana Sangham is now to restore the Temple and its management to the Bharana Sangham till the other issues are resolved by the Civil Courts.
9. We are unable to countenance the contentions raised by the Bharana Sangham as to occupation. We notice that respondents 3 & 4, who represent the Bharana Sangham before this Court, were present in Court when the interim order dated 01.11.2017 was passed. There was no submission made asserting the possession of the Bharana Sangham and the specific direction was in so far as ensuring that no illegalities are committed in the premises of the Temple; specifically by the contesting respondents. There was also a direction to the 7th respondent, the Executive Officer to report any illegality perpetrated by the contesting respondents to the Police. The Executive Officer is one appointed by the Board and there is no reason for his presence in the Temple premises unless he had already taken charge and was in occupation of the office and the premises. It is not clear when the Executive Officer was restored with possession; but as per the orders passed under the Act of 1951 he was entitled to assume office and management of the temple. The Bharana Sangham acceded to the interim order passed in this writ petition without demur and has now raised a plea that the management was taken over on the basis of the interim order. We cannot decide either way in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. We would not speak further, especially since the matter is pending before the Civil Court. What we have said on occupation looking at the facts and the interim orders passed are merely prima facie findings, which would not govern a proper consideration by the Civil Court. We also have to notice that the prayer for restoration of possession was specifically declined by Ext.P6 order, against which an FAO has been filed. We would restrain ourselves from making any observations regarding the pending disputes before the Civil Court.
11. We have to further emphasise that the writ petition is one for police protection, and admittedly, the Executive Officer now is in occupation of the Temple, which is on the basis of Ext.P1 order. There is no stay obtained of Ext.P1 order and as we noticed, a Division Bench of this Court had specifically directed the Bharana Sangham to approach the Civil Court and the Civil Court had elaborately considered their plea for restoration of status quo ante and declined the same. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Police to see that the occupation by the Executive Officer is not disturbed till and if the Civil Court says otherwise.
12. The learned Government Pleader has submitted before us that there is an intelligence report that the Executive Officer and the Manager of the Temple are under threat. It is for the Police to ensure that there is no danger caused to their life or limb. We leave it to the concerned Station House Officer to take appropriate measures after considering the Intelligence Report and after assessment of the ground realities.
We hence dispose of the writ petition with the above directions, but making it clear that none of the observations made by us would regulate the adjudication before the Civil Court. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.