Supreme Court of India
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 525
- Decided
- 22 September 2021
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
Paragraph 116(g) of the 13 July 2020 judgment mandates a special audit of both the Temple and the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust, so the petition to exclude the Trust from the audit is rejected.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined applications filed by the petitioners seeking to exclude the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust (SPSTT) from a special audit ordered under paragraph 116(g) of its earlier judgment dated 13 July 2020. The Court considered reports of the Temple’s Administrative and Advisory Committees, which highlighted a severe financial crisis caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic and reiterated the need for a comprehensive audit of both the Temple and the Trust. The petitioners also contended that SPSTT is a separate legal entity not subject to the control of the Temple committees under the Travancore‑Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1950. Relying on the Amicus Curiae’s report and earlier orders, the Court held that the audit direction was intended to cover SPSTT as well as the Temple, and therefore the prayer to exclude the Trust was rejected. The second prayer concerning the Trust’s independent status was left for later determination, and the Court directed that the special audit be completed within three months.
Issues considered
- The scope of paragraph 116(g) of the Supreme Court’s 13 July 2020 judgment – whether it includes the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust (SPSTT).
- Whether SPSTT is an independent entity distinct from Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and outside the administrative control of the Temple’s committees under the Travancore‑Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1950.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Special auditTemple trustTravancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments ActCOVID-19 financial crisisAmicus CuriaeIndependent trustAudit direction
Judgment
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 619 619
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Miscellaneous Application Nos.2280-2281 of 2020
B
in
Civil Appeal Nos. 2732 and 2733 of 2020
and
Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 C
in
(Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
D
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI]
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 –
Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple – In first batch of Miscellaneous
Applications, two reports each of the Administrative and Advisory E
Committees of temple were filed – The Administrative Committee
report dated 10.12.2020 stated that Temple was facing financial
crisis, resulting from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and
the subsequent lockdown – So, the direction contained in the Para
116(e) of judgment dated 13.07.2020 regarding audit for the last
F
25 years of the temple can be complied with only when the situation
attains normalcy – In the Administrative report dated 31.08.2021,
it was stated that Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust (SPSTT)
was created only for the benefit of the temple and temple is its sole
beneficiary – As per the Trust deed, the income from the Trust has
to be used only for the benefit of the temple – Earlier, the Amicus G
Curiae had opined in his report (page 375, Volume I, April 2014)
that the utilisation of income of the Trust for the Temple was not
adequately established and thus he recommended for auditing the
accounts of the Trust, during the special audit – It was further
submitted in report dated 31.08.2021 that that the Temple is facing H
619
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A an unprecedented crisis, which can only be tide over with the aid of
the Trust and the Government – In the second batch of Miscellaneous
Application, the SPSTT prayed to exclude SPSTT from the audit of
its accounts as per the directions given in Paragraph 116(g) of the
judgment dated 13.07.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020, as
B the said Trust remains separate and distinct from Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple and also prayed to hold that the
applicant SPSTT is an independent entity distinct form Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple and does not come under the
administrative control of the Administrative Committee and/ or
C
Advisory Committee under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious
Endowments Act, 1950 – Held: If direction No.116(g) in the said
judgment, is considered in the light of developments leading to the
passing of the Judgment dated 13.07.2020, it is quite clear that the
audit contemplated by said direction was not intended to be confined
D
to the Temple but was also with respect to SPSTT – This direction
has to be seen in the light of the report dated 15.04.2014 of the
Amicus Curiae and the submissions of SPSTT, as recorded in the
order dated 05.05.2015, in which it was stated by the Trust that it
E has no difficulty in cooperating with the scrutiny of audit reports
and even in conducting fresh audit – Therefore, the first prayer
made in the second batch of Miscellaneous Application to exclude
SPSTT from the audit is rejected and as far as second prayer i.e. to
hold that the applicant SPSTT is an independent entity distinct form
F Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is concerned, it will require
assessment of facts and analysis of same may be done appropiately
by the Court or a competent authority – So, this Court refrain from
going into issues pertaining to second prayer – Now, considering
the reports filed by the Administrative and Advisory Committees of
G temple, it is directed that the special audit, with respect to Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple and SPSTT be completed as early as
possible.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
Nos. 2280-2281 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2732 and 2733 of 2020 and
H
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 621
KERALA & ORS.
Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No. A
2732 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2011 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C) No.36487 of 2009.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., T. G. Narayanan Nair, Manu Krishnan,
V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, B
G. Prakash, Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Akhil Abraham
Roy, Vijay Valsan, M/s K J John and Co., P. S. Sudheer, Ms. Anne
Mathew, Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose, J. Sai Deepak, Suvidutt M. S.,
Ms. Dhanya C., Ms. Anu B., Ms. Vijayalakshmi Raju, Gautam Narayan,
Venkita Subramonium T. R., V. K. Sidharthan, Ramesh Babu M. R., C
Ranjan Kumar, M. P. Vinod, K. Rajeev, R. Sathish, Ravi Prakash
Mehrotra, M. P. Devanath, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Sumit Attri, Ms. Liz
Mathew, Abid Ali Beeran P, Ranbir Singh Yadav, A. Raghunath, Sajith
P., C. K. Sasi, V. Ramasubramanian, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Ms. Usha
Nandini V., Praveen Swarup, Ms. Manju Jetley, Advs. for the Appearing
Parties. D
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. In Miscellaneous Application Nos.2280-2281 of 2020, two
reports each of the Administrative and Advisory Committees of Sree E
Padmanabha Swamy Temple dated 10.12.2020 and 31.8.2021 have been
filed.
A) The Administrative Committee Report dated 10.12.2020 has
stated:-
F
“I may report that presently, the Temple is facing financial
crisis, resulting from the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and
the subsequent lockdown. In compliance with the guidelines / health
advisories of the Central and the State Governments, the entry of
devotees to the Temple was prohibited during the period from
24.03.2020 to 25.08.2020. Anyhow, without any hindrance, the G
routine rituals and poojas were performed during the said period.
There had been no flow of income to the Temple during the period
of lockdown, but, had to spend huge amounts for meeting the
expenditure for performing routine rituals, salary, wages, pension,
family pension etc. and other recurring expenses. The amounts
H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A accrued till the declaration of lockdown have almost been drained
out. From 26.08.2020, the entry of devotees was resumed with
restrictions observing COVID protocol. However, as a result of
the situation prevailing, the income of the temple is meagre which
is not even enough to meet the expenditure towards salary, wages,
pension, family pension and other routine expenses. Considering
B
the financial position of the Temple, in the joint meeting held on
11.10.2020, it was resolved to address the Government to grant
time to return the amounts expended by the State Government.
The directions contained in Para 116 (e) can be complied
with only when the situation attains normalcy.
C
Special Audit
In Paragraph 116 (g) of the Judgment it was directed that
the Committees:-
“(g) Shall order audit for the last 25 years as suggested
D by the learned Amicus Curiae. The audit shall be conducted
by a firm of reputed Chartered Accountants. The Advisory
Committee shall also consider what further steps need to be
taken for the preservation of the Temple properties, both
movable and immovable.”
E After deliberations in the Joint Meeting, as per the resolution
dated 27.10.2020, M/s Sridhar & Co. Chartered Accountants,
Thiruvananthapuram, has been appointed as the Auditor to conduct
special audit in respect of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, Sree
Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust and other allied Trusts, for a
F period of 25 years, as suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae in
his report dated 15.04.2014, from the financial year 1989-90 to
2013-14.”
B) In Administrative Committee Report dated 31.08.2021, it has
been stated :
G “3. The Special Audit for 25 years as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has commenced in respect of the accounts of the
Temple. As per Paragraph 116(g) of the judgement, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has directed to conduct ‘audit for 25 years as
suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae’. Whereas, the learned
Amicus Curiae has suggested (in Paragraph 65 of his report dated
H
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 623
KERALA & ORS.
15.4.2014) for the audit of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust A
and allied trusts, along with the audit of the Temple. Thus, the
auditor was entrusted to conduct special audit of the accounts of
the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust and allied Trusts, as
well for a period of 25 years. But the Auditor has now informed
that though he has served a letter, the said Trust has not provided
B
the accounts of the Trust to the Audit team, so far. In this
circumstance, I may report the following facts.
4. The objects of the Trust, as per its Registered Deed No.66/
1965 dated 12.08.1965 are as follows:
(1) Routine and major items of repairs in and to the Temple, C
including the compound walls.
(2) Routine and major item of repairs to Vahanam, ornaments
and pooja vessels used in the Temple.
(3) Payment of Vilavasi in respect of articles which used to be
paid for by the former Government of Travancore State and D
the cost in respect of articles whose source ofsupply is specified
as Palace Panivagai, Kandukrishy and Nithyachilavu in the
pathivoos.
(4) Annual repairs to vessels other than pooja vessels used in
the Temple. E
(5) Manufacture or purchase and supply of new vessels for
use in the Temple.
(6) Performance of Bhagyasooktha japom and viseshal nei
japom in the temple.
F
(7) Performance of Chathayam Thiruveli and cost of other
miscellaneous items of expenses.
(8) Performance of Ganapathy homam in the Temple.
Performance of Paradesa paksha japam for 41 days in July/
August in each year in the Temple. G
(9) Performance as hitherto fore of Murajapom and
Lakshadeepam in the Temple once in six years, the first of
which is to be performed under this instrument in the year
1971.
H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A (10) Such capital items of work as may be necessary from
time to time to and in the Temple including the compound walls.
5. Thereafter, few more objects were also added by executing a
supplemental indenture of Trust on 10-01-1970.
i. Payment of Dakshina to Tharanalloor Namboothiripad in
B connection with Bhadradeepom ceremonies in Sree
Padmanabha Swamy Temple.
ii. (a) Supplying Devan kadalipazham in Sree Padmanabha
Swamy Temple on Ekadasi days.
C (b) Supplying milk for Abhishekam daily in Sree Padmanabha
Swamy Temple.
iii. Performance of Paradesa Paksha Sahasranama Japom for
ten days during utsavam festival;
iv. Expenditure on salary of the Executive Officer and staff.
D
6. From these objects of the said Trust, it is evident that the Trust
was created only for the benefit of the Temple and the Temple is
its sole beneficiary. The founder of the Trust Sri.Rama Varma
Maharaja of Travancore had transferred to this Trust various items
of landed properties which are surrounding the Temple, and the
E transfer was made solely for the benefit of the Temple. As per
the Trust deed, the income from the Trust has to be used only for
the said objects viz., the benefit of the Temple. The present trustees
of the said Trust are members of the erstwhile Travancore royal
family and persons connected to them.
F 7. In view of the above facts, the learned Amicus Curiae has
opined in his report (page 375, Volume I, April 2014) that the
utilisation of income of the Trust for the Temple has not been
adequately established and thus he recommended for auditing the
accounts of the Trust, during the special audit.
G *** *** ***
10. I may most humbly report that, despite the earnest efforts of
the Temple to improve its income and to cut short its expenditure
even by drastically reducing the daily wage employment, it is not
able to fill the income and expenditure gap. So far, the crisis is
H managed by utilizing the funds available in various Fixed Deposits
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 625
KERALA & ORS.
and Savings Bank accounts, but the said amount will completely A
be depleted, if the Temple pays of the salary of the next two
months and the amount due towards gratuity and other debts. It is
submitted that the Temple is facing an unprecedented crisis, which
can only be tide over with the aid of the Trust and the Government.”
2. Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 has been filed by B
Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust (‘SPSTT’, for short). In the
application, it is asserted :
“2. The Applicant Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust is an
independent Trust created in the year 1965 (“SPSTT”) by the
then “Ruler of Travancore” Sree Chithira Thirunal Bala Rama C
Varma for the perpetual continuation of the devotional offerings
to the Temple, other specified religious rites and certain functions
integral to his family traditions, which earlier were done by the
erstwhile royal family. The Temple and SPSTT, it is submitted,
are two separate and distinct entities. The primary source of income
of SPSTT is the rentals from some buildings, which are in its D
ownership and the same is spent towards maintenance and upkeep
of the said buildings, minor administrative expenses, the offerings
for the Temple and in accordance with its objects. Most of the
buildings owned by the Applicant are old and has great historical
importance. E
*** *** ***
5. In 1965, the Applicant herein was created by Sri Chithira
Thirunal Bala Rama Varma, the erstwhile Ruler of State of
Travancore by an indenture of settlement dated 25.06.1965 for
the purpose of carry out specific rituals/ functions which were F
continued by him in the Temple after the loss of State. The initial
corpus was Four percent Madras State Development Loan, 1971
of the face value of Rs.10,000/-, transferred by the Founder.
Subsequently, the Ruler kept adding some of his private immovable
properties and buildings to SPSTT. SPSTT was created to, among G
others, ensure that the special offerings and functions to the
Temple, done as a part of the erstwhile royal family’s devotion,
could be conducted smoothly and without any departure from the
age old customs and traditions. The objectives, however, also
included the family ritual of Chathayam Thiruveli, which is
H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A conducted to commemorate the anniversary of the eldest nephew
of the Founding Trustee, who passed away at the age of 6 years.
9. It is submitted that SPSTT was not formed with an object of
making payments in cash for the day-to-day management of the
Temple. As stated above, SPSTT was formed to ensure the
B continuance of the offerings to the Temple made by the erstwhile
royal family. At the cost of repetition, it is respectfully submitted
that the object of SPSTT was not to run the Temple but to provide
some financial assistance for certain poojas and vazhipadoos, in
line with its objects. This is evident from the fact that the payment
made to the Temple by SPSTT was fixed, taking into account its
C limited resources, and did not cover the entire expenses incurred
towards performance of a Pooja or offering. Further, the income
of SPSTT crippled over time on its account of buildings being
transferred by the Trustees based on the requirements of the
Temple. For instance, more than two buildings were transferred
D to house the security of the Temple. These transfers left the
Temple with very limited revenue earning properties. Needless to
state, the expenses of the Temple kept increasing over time.”
2.1 The report of the learned Amicus Curiae is dealt with as under:-
“14. The Ld. Amicus Curiae in its report dated 15.04.2014 made
E several recommendations including conduct of a special audit of
the Temple. In particular, the report recommended that:
“65. It is submitted that a special audit needs to be conducted
by Shri Vinod Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General of
India. It is further submitted that a team of auditors appointed
F by him shall undertake complete audit in respect of the Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple for the last 25 years. It is also
submitted that he be empowered to take into his custody and
seal all the documents of the Trust properties forthwith. The
said audit must not only cover the Sree Padmanabhaswamy
G Temple, but also the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust
and other allied trusts ……”
15. Pursuant to the said Report, this Hon’ble Court vide its order
dated 24.04.2014, inter alia, directed as under:
“A special audit of the Temple and its properties shall be
H conducted as early as may be possible, preferably by Shri Vinod
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 627
KERALA & ORS.
Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He will A
be at liberty to take services/assistance of any other person/
persons in completion of this task.”
It is submitted that though recommended by the Ld.
Amicus Curiae, this Hon’ble Court, had not directed the audit
of the Applicant or other Trusts. It is submitted that the B
properties of the Applicant do not form a part of the properties
of the Temple. This fact was intimated by the Applicant to the
Special Audit authorities vide its letter dated 20.09.2014.”
*** *** ***
17. Thereafter, when the petition was listed on 05.05.2015, this C
Hon’ble Court took note of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel
for the Applicant as under:-
“…. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the
Trust submits that although the special audit for the period
01.04.2008 to 01.04.2014 has already been conducted and a
report submitted to this Court, the trust would have no difficulty D
in co-operating with Mr. Rai in undertaking scrutiny of the said
audit report and in conducting a fresh audit, if in his opinion
doing so is necessary. There could in that case be an audit for
the entire period commencing from 01.04.2008 to 01.04.2014.
Mr. Datar further submits that Mr. Rai may be requested to E
raise whatever queries are considered relevant for completion
of the audit so that the trust answers the same suitably…
Further, this Hon’ble Court directed the copy of the audit
report filed on behalf of SPSTT (of M/s Manohar Chowdhary)
to Mr. Vinod Rai for his perusal and evaluation and, further,
F
directed that in case Mr. Rai upon consideration of the audit
already conducted, is one of the opinion that a fresh/special
audit needs to be conducted for the period 01.04.2008 onwards,
he shall be free to undertake that exercise. SPSTT was also
directed to make available all such information and record as
may be necessary for completion of that exercise. Further, it G
was observed that Mr. Rai will also do well to raise any query
that may be relevant for completion of the audit to enable the
trust to answer them. With the above directions, it is submitted,
the recommendation made by the Ld. Amicus Curiae with
respect to the Applicant was considered and acted upon.”
H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 18. That this Hon’ble Court, on 09.10.2015, requested Mr. Vinod
Rai to complete the audit of SPSTT for the period 01.04.2009 to
01.04.2014 and to submit report. It is submitted that pursuant to
the above order, the Special Audit Authority conducted detailed
audit of the Applicant from June, 2015 and submitted its report
before this Hon’ble Court on 28.03.2016. It is respectfully submitted
B
that the said audit report does not record any finding that:
(a) The properties of SPSTT are part of the properties of the
Temple;
(b) Funds have been transferred from the Temple to SPSTT;
C (c) The Trust is entrusted with the administration of the
Temple;
(d) There exists any agreement between the Trust and the
Temple on any matters relating to the rituals and rites or
any other functions in the Temple;
D
(e) The working of SPSTT is accountable to the Temple
administration; or that
(f) There exists a legally auditable relationship between
SPSTT and the Temple.”
E 2.2 Certain interim orders passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No.2732 of 2020 and the Report of the learned Amicus Curiae dated
15.04.2014 are referred to as under:
“24. Additionally, the Applicant respectfully submits that the
decision of the Temple Committees to conduct audit of the
F Applicant is misconceived in view of the following, among others,
reasons:
i. The Applicant is a distinct and separate entity from the Temple.
There are no findings to the contrary by this Hon’ble Court or
the High Court, as there was no adjudication on this aspect;
G ii. The administration of the Temple contemplated by Chapter
III of the TC Act has been handed over to the Administrative
Committee and Advisory Committee pursuant to the judgment.
The Applicant respectfully submits that Committees are not
empowered, under the TC Act, to direct audit of the Applicant
H
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 629
KERALA & ORS.
– a third party which is independent and distinct from the A
Temple. Such an action, it is submitted would be illegal, ultra
vires the TC Act and beyond the scope of the directions of
this Hon’ble Court.
iii. The reliance placed on Paragraph 116 of the judgment, for
the purpose of directing the audit of the Applicant, it is B
respectfully submitted, is misdirected as the directions
contained therein pertain to the functions to be performed by
the Committees of the Temple, with respect to the
administration of the Temple, in the way forward. The said
directions cannot be interpreted to exercise control over the
Trusts created by the erstwhile Ruler, for the purpose of C
performing different objects;
iv. A reading of clause (g) of Paragraph 116 of the judgment
makes it evident that the audit primarily deals with the Temple
and its properties, which is the subject matter of the underlying
litigation. In this regard, it may be seen that none of the audit D
reports suggests that any property or funds of the Temple has
been transferred to the Applicant or that it has played any
role in the day to day administration of the Temple;
v. The judgment, it is submitted did not specifically deal with
SPSTT. It is reiterated that this Hon’ble Court did not have E
an opportunity to consider the relation of SPSTT with the
Temple or its functions, which necessitate a direction to be
passed to conduct audit of accounts of SPSTT;
vi. The Applicant was subjected to a special audit pursuant to
the orders of this Hon’ble Court and it had also filed detailed F
objections to the same, by way of an Affidavit. Under the
given circumstances, subjecting the Applicant to another audit
especially when it has always remained as a stand-alone trust
is highly unreasonable and unjustified; and
vii. The suggestion for conduct of an audit of SPSTT was G
vehemently opposed and the said aspect, it is respectfully
submitted, was dealt with by this Hon’ble Court in its previous
orders.”
H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 2.3 In the premises, the application prays:
“(a) Allow the present Application and pass appropriate directions
to exclude Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust from the audit
of its accounts as per the directions given in Paragraph 116(g) of
the judgment dated 13.07.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020,
B as the said Trust remains separate and distinct from Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple;
(b) Pass an appropriate order holding that the Applicant Sree
Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust is an independent entity distinct
form Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and does not come under
C the administrative control of the Administrative Committee and/
or Advisory Committee under the Travancore Cochin Hindu
Religious Endowments Act, 1950.”
3. In this backdrop, the following observations made by this Court
in its judgment dated 13.07.2020 disposing of Civil Appeal No.2732 of
D 2020 and allied matters must now be noted:-
“34. The Order dated 05.05.2015 passed by this Court noted the
submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that an audit be
conducted with regard to the account of Padmanabhaswamy
Temple Trust and its properties. It also noted the submission of
E appellants that a special audit for the period had already been
conducted, but he would not have any objection in cooperating
with Mr. Rai. The Order, therefore, directed:-
“In the circumstances, therefore, we direct that a copy of the
audit report filed on behalf of the Padmanabhan Swamy Trust
F in this court for the period 01.04.2008 shall be forwarded to
Mr. Rai for his perusal and evaluation. We further direct that
in case Mr. Rai upon consideration of the audit already
conducted is of the opinion that a fresh/special audit needs to
be conducted for the period 01.04.2008 onwards he shall be
free to undertake that exercise in which case the Trust shall
G make available all such information and record as may be
necessary for completion of that exercise. Mr. Rai will also do
well to raise any query that may be relevant for completion of
the audit to enable the trust to answer them. We extend the
time for completion of the audit till 31.12.2015.
H
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 631
KERALA & ORS.
We permit the State Government to approach the Expert A
Committee for scaling down the staff deployed for
inventorisation and archiving of antiques and artifacts by
KELTRON and Expert Committee who may upon
consideration of any such request issue appropriate orders in
that regard. Mr. Rai has in terms of communication dated
B
1.04.2015 raised a demand for a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/-
representing the total fee including expenses etc. for the period
up to December, 2015. There is no objection by any one
appearing for the parties to the release of the said amount in
favour of Mr. Rai. We accordingly direct the Administrative
Committee to release the amount billed by Mr. Rai. C
*** *** ***
36. In March 2016, Report about Special Audit of Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple, its properties and Sree Padmanabha
Swamy Temple Trust was filed by Mr. Vinod Rai, running into
two volumes along with “Major Audit Observations and D
Recommendations”.
The Administrative Committee appointed by this Court
resolved on 13.06.2017 as under:-
“the Committee is in the darkness on the financial
position of the temple. Quarterly budget proposals E
should be prepared and communicated to the Committee.
Similarly, monthly accounts statement should be placed
before the Committee before 10th of every succeeding
month. The matter will be communicated to the Executive
Officer.”
F
The resolution was communicated to the Executive Officer.”
3.1 In keeping with the submissions made by the learned Amicus
Curiae, direction No.116(g) issued by this Court was as under:-
“…..
(g) Shall order audit for the last 25 years as suggested by the G
learned Amicus Curiae. The audit shall be conducted by a firm
of reputed Chartered Accountants. The Advisory Committee shall
also consider what further steps need to be taken for the
preservation of the Temple properties, both movable and
immovable.”
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 4. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Administrative and Advisory Committees of Sree Padmanabhaswamy
Temple has reiterated the submissions made in the aforesaid reports.
On the other hand, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for SPSTT has prayed that this Court may pass appropriate
orders declaring SPSTT to be an independent entity distinct from Sree
B
Padmanabhaswamy Temple.
5. In response to the Report of the learned Amicus Curiae dated
15.04.2014, in its order dated 24.04.2014 this Court had initially directed
that special audit of the Temple and its properties be conducted by Shri
Vinod Rai. Later, the order dated 05.05.2015 recorded the submissions
C of Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for SPSTT
that the Trust would not have any difficulty in cooperating with Mr. Rai
in undertaking scrutiny of the Audit Reports and in conducting a fresh
audit.
6. If direction No.116(g) as stated above, is considered in the light
D of developments leading to the passing of the Judgment dated 13.07.2020,
it is quite clear that the audit contemplated by said direction was not
intended to be confined to the Temple but was also with respect to SPSTT.
This direction has to be seen in the light of the report dated 15.04.2014
of the learned Amicus Curiae and the submissions of Mr. Arvind P.
E Datar, learned Senior Advocate, as recorded in the order dated
05.05.2015.
Thus, the first prayer made in Miscellaneous Application No.1465
of 2021 deserves to be rejected.
7. The second prayer made in said Miscellaneous Application will
F require assessment of facts which analysis may appropriately be done
by a Court or an authority competent to go into that question after the
special audit as directed in direction No.116(g) and as explained
hereinabove, is conducted. We, therefore, refrain from going into issues
pertaining to the second prayer.
G 8. Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 is, thus, disposed
of in aforesaid terms.
9. We now come to the reports filed by the Administrative and
Advisory Committees. Our answer with respect to the first prayer in
Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to take
H
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. v. STATE OF 633
KERALA & ORS.
care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated A
27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however,
calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, as
referred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple
and SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably within
three months from the date of this order.
B
10. As the order dated 05.05.2015 had recorded the statement of
Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate for SPSTT, we are certain
that SPSTT will render complete cooperation in the conduct of special
audit.
C
Ankit Gyan Miscellaneous Application disposed of.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Special audit"Sign in to search