Case Note & Summary
The appellants, claiming to be the elected Secretary and President of the Executive Committee of Oachira Parabrahma Temple in Kerala, challenged two orders of the Kerala High Court. The first order dated 02.03.2020 disposed of RFA No.562/2010, directing the trial court to frame a scheme for the temple's management and appointing a retired Judge as Administrative Head. The second order dated 07.02.2023, passed in I.A. No.5/2022 in the same disposed of RFA, removed the elected Executive Committee and appointed an unelected five-member committee. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had become functus officio after disposing of the RFA and thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory application. The Court also observed that the bye-laws of the temple provide for a five-year term for elected bodies, and since no election was held after May 2017, the elected committees continued. The Supreme Court set aside the second impugned order and, with consent of all parties, appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramakrishnan, a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court, as Administrator to conduct elections for the temple committees within four months, strictly in accordance with the bye-laws. The Administrator was authorized to appoint two officers to assist him and was to be paid an honorarium from temple funds. The Court directed that all expenses for the election and administration be borne by the temple funds.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Functus Officio - Jurisdiction after disposal of appeal - Once a Regular First Appeal is disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain any further application in the disposed of appeal, as it loses jurisdiction - Held that the High Court erred in entertaining I.A. No.5/2022 and passing the second impugned order after the RFA was concluded (Paras 8, 14).
B) Religious Endowments - Scheme for Administration - Appointment of Administrator - Pending framing of a scheme by the trial court, the Supreme Court appointed a retired Judge as Administrator to conduct elections for the temple committees strictly in accordance with the bye-laws, to ensure smooth administration - Held that it is just and necessary to conduct elections under the aegis of a new Administrator (Paras 15-16).
C) Temple Management - Bye-laws - Term of Office - As per Clauses 9 and 11 of the bye-laws, the term of the elected General Body is five years and other bodies are co-terminus - Since no election was held after May 2017, the elected committees continued - Held that the High Court's order removing the elected committee and appointing an unelected committee was contrary to the bye-laws (Paras 11, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, having become functus officio after disposal of the Regular First Appeal, could entertain an interlocutory application and pass orders removing the elected committee and appointing an unelected committee; and whether the High Court was justified in removing the elected Executive Committee contrary to the bye-laws.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the second impugned order dated 07.02.2023, and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramakrishnan, a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court, as Administrator to conduct elections for the temple committees within four months in accordance with the bye-laws. The Administrator was authorized to appoint two officers to assist him and was to be paid an honorarium from temple funds. The Court directed that all expenses be borne by the temple funds.
Law Points
- Functus officio
- Coram non judice
- Scheme for administration of religious institutions
- Bye-laws of temple
- Election of temple committees
- Appointment of administrator pending scheme
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (12) 32
Civil Appeal No(s). 13708 - 13709 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).10598 - 10599 /2023)
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr.
G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against orders of the High Court of Kerala in a Regular First Appeal concerning framing of a scheme for administration of a temple and subsequent interlocutory order removing elected committee.
Remedy Sought
The appellants, claiming to be elected Secretary and President of the temple's Executive Committee, sought setting aside of the High Court's order dated 07.02.2023 which removed the elected committee and appointed an unelected committee.
Filing Reason
The High Court passed an order in a disposed of appeal, removing the elected Executive Committee and appointing an unelected committee, which the appellants contended was without jurisdiction and contrary to the bye-laws.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in OS.No.1/2006 passed a preliminary decree on 09.04.2010 directing framing of a scheme. The High Court in RFA No.562/2010 on 02.03.2020 directed the trial court to frame a scheme and appointed a retired Judge as Administrative Head. Subsequently, on 07.02.2023, the High Court passed the second impugned order removing the elected committee.
Issues
Whether the High Court, having become functus officio after disposal of the RFA, could entertain an interlocutory application and pass orders removing the elected committee and appointing an unelected committee.
Whether the High Court was justified in removing the elected Executive Committee contrary to the bye-laws of the temple.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the High Court became functus officio after disposing of the RFA and thus lacked jurisdiction to pass the second impugned order. They also contended that the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court was not functioning properly and that the removal of the elected committee was contrary to the bye-laws.
Respondents argued that the steps taken were necessary for the administration of the temple until a scheme is framed and elections are held.
Ratio Decidendi
A court becomes functus officio upon disposal of a proceeding and cannot entertain any further application in that proceeding. The High Court erred in entertaining I.A. No.5/2022 after disposing of RFA No.562/2010. Additionally, the removal of the elected committee was contrary to the bye-laws which provide for a five-year term. Pending framing of a scheme, it is just and necessary to conduct elections under the aegis of a new Administrator to ensure smooth administration.
Judgment Excerpts
When the entire proceedings in RFA was concluded by the 1st impugned order, whether the High Court, which had become functus officio and coram non judice losing its jurisdiction upon disposal of the RFA, was correct in entertaining the interlocutory application No.5 of 2022 and passing the 2nd impugned order.
Clause 9 of the Bye-laws makes it clear that the term of office of the elected General Body is five years from the date of the election. As per Clause 11, the term of the other elected bodies is co-terminus with that of the General Body.
In the given facts, it is imperative to restore, protect and preserve temples and their properties with utmost care.
Procedural History
In 2006, a suit was filed before the 1st Additional District Court, Kollam, seeking a scheme for administration of the temple. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 09.04.2010 directing framing of a scheme. Aggrieved, defendant Nos.12 and 13 filed RFA No.562/2010 before the Kerala High Court. The High Court disposed of the RFA on 02.03.2020, directing the trial court to frame a scheme and appointing a retired Judge as Administrative Head. Subsequently, on 07.02.2023, the High Court passed an order in I.A. No.5/2022 removing the elected Executive Committee and appointing an unelected committee. The appellants then filed the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
