The Kerala High Court’s judgment in this writ petition establishes a critical precedent on the procedural rigour required when state authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers over hereditary trustees of religious institutions. The quashing of the impugned order underscores that statutory powers, however broad, cannot override fundamental principles of fair hearing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, the Zamorin Raja of Calicut, is the hereditary trustee of 43 temples and associated educational institutions in Malabar, governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (MHRCE Act). The respondents, including the Malabar Devaswom Board and its Commissioner-in-charge, issued an order constituting a Special Team to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the administration of Special Grade, 'A' Grade, and 'B' Grade temples under the petitioner’s trusteeship. The petitioner contended that this order was issued without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, and by an officer lacking statutory competence.
Procedural History
- 23 September 2016: The Commissioner-in-charge issued Ext.P2 order constituting a Special Team to investigate the Zamorin Devaswom, without prior notice or hearing.
- 26 September 2016: A notice (Ext.P1) was issued under Section 45(c) and (d) of the MHRCE Act, calling upon the petitioner to appear on 26 October 2016.
- 31 May 2017: Respondents 4 to 23, representing other stakeholders, were impleaded.
- 30 January 2026: The writ petition was heard and decided by the Kerala High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, violation of natural justice, and incompetence of the issuing authority.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Commissioner-in-charge, who was not appointed in accordance with Section 8C of the MHRCE Act, had the legal authority to initiate quasi-judicial proceedings under Section 45, and whether such proceedings could be commenced without affording the trustee an opportunity to be heard.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The Commissioner-in-charge was a Deputy Commissioner in the abolished department, not an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to Government as mandated by Section 8C(1) of the MHRCE Act as it stood in 2016.
- The appointment to the Commissioner’s post was not declared as a "full additional charge" under Kerala Service Rules, rendering the officer legally incompetent to exercise quasi-judicial powers.
- Ext.P2 was passed ex parte, prior to the date fixed for hearing under Ext.P1, violating the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 45(2).
- Proceedings under Section 45 are quasi-judicial, and Manavikrama Zamorin Raja v. Commissioner holds that natural justice applies with full force.
For the Respondent
The Board’s counsel contended that:
- The Commissioner-in-charge was acting in an interim capacity and had been vested with all powers of the Commissioner.
- The enquiry was initiated due to numerous complaints of mismanagement, and suspension pending enquiry does not prejudice the trustee.
- The petitioner’s remedy lay in filing a revision under Section 99, not a writ petition.
- The order was administrative in nature and not quasi-judicial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous analysis of statutory provisions, procedural compliance, and the nature of powers under Section 45. It held that Section 45 empowers the Commissioner to suspend, remove, or dismiss a trustee only after framing specific charges and providing a full opportunity to respond. The Court emphasized that the phrase "when it is proposed to take action" in Section 45(2) triggers mandatory procedural obligations.
"The statutory framework mandates strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The provision expressly requires that when it is proposed to initiate action under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall frame specific charges against the trustee concerned and afford him a reasonable opportunity to meet such charges and to test the evidence produced in support thereof."
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the order was administrative. It held that constituting a Special Team to investigate the entire administrative functioning of a hereditary trustee’s institutions, with potential consequences for management and control, was a quasi-judicial act. The Court further noted that the Commissioner-in-charge was not validly appointed under Section 8C(1), which required an officer of Joint Secretary rank. The 2018 amendment, which permitted a Deputy Commissioner to act as Commissioner, was not in force at the time of the order.
The Court also found the timing of Ext.P2 - issued before the scheduled hearing date under Ext.P1 - to be a flagrant violation of natural justice. The order was not merely premature; it rendered the statutory hearing a nullity. The Court cited Manavikrama Zamorin Raja v. Commissioner to affirm that quasi-judicial proceedings demand adherence to audi alteram partem.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 45 of the MHRCE Act requires strict compliance with procedural fairness, and only an officer validly appointed under Section 8C may exercise quasi-judicial powers. Ext.P2 order was quashed for being issued by an incompetent authority and in violation of natural justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Quasi-Judicial Actions Cannot Be Masked as Administrative
- Practitioners must challenge any order that affects the rights of a trustee under Section 45 as quasi-judicial, regardless of how it is labelled.
- Authorities cannot bypass mandatory hearings by framing investigations as "administrative enquiries."
- Any order that initiates proceedings leading to suspension or removal must strictly follow Section 45(2) procedures.
Competence of Authority Is Jurisdictional
- The rank and appointment of the officer exercising powers under Section 45 is not a technicality - it goes to the root of jurisdiction.
- Interim appointments must be explicitly declared as "full additional charge" under service rules; mere "discharge of current duties" does not confer statutory powers.
- Courts will examine the legal basis of appointment, not just the functional role.
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable in Trustee Matters
-
A notice to appear cannot be rendered meaningless by an ex parte order issued before the hearing date.
-
The principle of audi alteram partem applies even where allegations are grave or numerous.
-
Delay in issuing a hearing notice does not justify pre-emptive action.
-
Always verify the statutory rank and appointment status of the authority issuing quasi-judicial orders.
-
File writ petitions immediately when natural justice is violated, even if statutory appeals exist.
-
Argue that Section 45 proceedings are not subject to the "final order" doctrine - procedural violations are challengeable at any stage.
