The Chairman and Sree Thricherumanna alias Kottiyoor vs K.C. Velayudhan Nair and Others

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The review petitioners contend that the observation made by this Court while passing the judgment in the writ petition, though declining interference, that the ''minutes'' have to be prepared in accordance with Rule 9 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for short ''HR & CE Act'') is not correct or proper in so far as the ''minutes'' in respect of the affairs of the Devaswom have to be prepared with reference to and in the manner as prescribed under ''Clause 6(e)'' of Annexure 1 Scheme which has been formulated by this Court in exercise of the powers u/s 62 of the HR & CE Act.

The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, who was a trustee, challenging Exts.P8 and P9 decisions, allegedly taken without obtaining the signature of all the trustees as required under Rule 9 of the HR & CE Act. The matter was considered at length at the admission stage itself and interference was declined on merits, especially for the reason that the petitioner had not chosen to file any objection at the relevant point of time and that the matter did not require any intervention at the hands of this Court at the belated stage. However, while passing the said verdict an observation was made in the ''last paragraph'' of the judgment, stating that the dismissal of the case will not absolve the requirement of Rule 9 of HR & CE Act to be strictly complied with and accordingly, the authorities were directed to look into the matter and if there was any irregularity, the same was directed to be considered and appropriate remedial measures were ordered to be taken. The learned Counsel for the review petitioners submits that the said observatcon actually runs contrary to what is contained under Clause 6(e) of Annexure 1 Scheme, which clearly stipulates that, it is for the Executive Officer to maintain all registers of the ''minutes'' and the same shall be signed by the Chairman of the Board or the concerned trustee who presided over the meeting and that is all. This being the position, the stipulation in the above judgment placed a hurdle in the effective administration and management of the proceedings of the Board, which is sought to be rectified.

Heard learned Counsel for the respondents as well. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the matter can be disposed of making it clear, that the authorities shall look into the matter as to the preparation and finalization of the ''minutes'' in accordance with law, also with reference to the terms of Annexure 1 Scheme. It is ordered accordingly.

With the above limited modification, the review petition is disposed of.