JOINT DIRECTOR V. SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DBAR NO. 2 OF 2025:

DATE: 08/08/2025

COURT:  High Court of Kerala

BENCH: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar

FACTS:

The dispute stems from a purported agreement to sell (Mahadnama) dated 26 December 1986, in which the petitioner, Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh, claimed that the respondent, Harish Jaiswal, agreed to sell him a property for Rs.63,000. An advance of Rs.18,000 was allegedly paid at the time of execution, with the balance to be paid in three annual instalments of Rs.15,000 each, said to have been completed by December 1989. The petitioner contended that despite full payment, the respondent refused to execute the sale deed, prompting him to file a suit for specific performance.

The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all dismissed the petitioner’s claims, holding that the payment receipts and related documents were fabricated and that no valid agreement to sell had been concluded. The matter later reached the Supreme Court, which, on 13 December 2024, disposed of the petitioner’s special leave petition based on a reported settlement between the parties. This development became contentious when the respondent later alleged that he had never engaged any lawyer for such a settlement and that a forged agreement had been filed without his knowledge or consent.

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the court was whether the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) had failed in its statutory duty to implement proper accounting and monitoring systems specifically, complete computerisation of operations, to prevent corruption, mismanagement, and embezzlement, in light of the detected embezzlement at Sri Ayyappa Fuels and persistent delays in statutory audits of temples and institutions under its control.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to submit, by 22 August 2025, a comprehensive report detailing the concrete steps taken to fully computerise the accounts and operations of all institutions under its administration. The report must confirm whether an end-to-end ERP system with integrated modules for accounting, procurement, HR, project management, and anti-corruption mechanisms has been implemented. If not, the Board must explain the reasons for non-compliance.

The court found that the Board’s lax administration had resulted in serious financial irregularities, as evidenced by the embezzlement at Sri Ayyappa Fuels and the absence of proper digital accounting mechanisms. This negligence persisted despite binding directions issued as early as 2015 mandating complete computerisation to ensure transparency and accountability. Citing statutory obligations under Sections 3, 15A, 24, and 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the court emphasised that the Board is legally and morally bound to safeguard the funds and assets of the temples. The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007), which underscored the duty of trustees and boards to protect temple properties from misappropriation, noting that mismanagement often occurs with the collusion of authorities. It observed that the failure to implement computerisation not only perpetuates misappropriation but also erodes public trust and deprives institutions of rightful financial growth. The court stressed that transparency, accountability, and robust technological safeguards are statutory requirements, not matters of discretion, and that further delay would only aid unscrupulous elements in continuing the misappropriation of funds.

ANALYSIS:

The case presents two intertwined yet distinct legal concerns: first, an allegation of fraud in the settlement of a property dispute, and second, the judiciary’s broader supervisory role in ensuring institutional accountability. In the property matter, the petitioner’s claim of an agreement to sell was consistently rejected by the lower courts as based on fabricated documents. The twist arose when, after years of litigation, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter on the basis of a reported settlement, only for the respondent to later assert that he had never authorised any lawyer to negotiate or enter such a compromise. This raised serious procedural and ethical issues concerning the authenticity of legal representation and the sanctity of court records. The allegations suggest a potential misuse of the litigation process, undermining the fairness and reliability of judicial outcomes.

Simultaneously, the case highlights judicial scrutiny of systemic failures in governance, as seen in the Travancore Devaswom Board matter. The Supreme Court’s insistence on full computerisation and ERP-based management was not merely a technical directive but a recognition that technological infrastructure is indispensable for preventing corruption, enhancing transparency, and ensuring statutory compliance in public and quasi-public bodies. The court grounded its reasoning in established legal principles from A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, reinforcing the fiduciary duty of trustees to protect assets. By setting a deadline and demanding accountability for non-compliance, the court demonstrated an assertive approach to institutional reform, one that links procedural integrity in individual disputes with structural integrity in public administration.