Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether parties could reagitate the question of maintainability of a petition filed under sec.89 (1) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act before the District Judge, when a Division Bench of this court has already rendered a finding that it is maintainable before the District Judge and relegated the parties to that remedy?

2. O.P. No.34 of 1998 was an application preferred by the petitioner herein under section 89(1) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act challenging the order of the Cochin Devaswom Board removing him from the post of trustee of Valiyalakkal Group ‘Devaswom and appointing the second respondent as the trustee. The said appointment was reported to this court and this court as per order dated 18.7.1997 in C.D.B. No 33 of 1993 approved the appointment of the petitioner as trustee of Valiyalakkal Group Devaswom. One Mr. Chandran moved this court challenging the approval granted by the Devoswom Board. This court took note of the fact that approval was granted without taking into account all the aspects of the matter. Consequently this court directed the Devaswom Board to consider the question afresh with regard to the approval granted by the Board of the appointment of the petitioner as trustee. Later the Board passed an order dated 15.1.1998 by which petitioner was removed from the office of the trustee of the Devaswom Board. Petitioner then approached this court by filling O.P.No. 1193 of 1998 challenging the said order and appointment of the second respondent as trustee.

3. The second respondent raised a preliminary objection before the Division Bench, viz., that the original petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to move the District Court under Sec.89(1) of the Act. The Division Bench minuted in the judgment as follows:

“A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the Original Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable and that the remedy is to move the district Court within 90 days of the date of communication of order of removal and apply to the said court to modify or cancel the order of the Board and subject to the decision of the Court the order of the Board shall be final.”

The Division Bench examined the preliminary objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the petition and held as follows:

“Therefore as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent the remedy to the writ petitioner is to move the district court under Sec.29 sub-clause (1) to modify or cancel the order of the Board removing him from the trusteeship…Since as provided under Section 89(1) the petitioner is given the right to approach the district court by applying to the said court to modify or cancel the order of the Board ordering removal from his trusteeship……….Since it is not a suit as provided under section 124 of the Act, we are of the view that the petitioner need not give any notice. Even assuming that such a notice is necessary under section 124 of the Act, we are of the view that such a notice shall be waived and dispensed with in view of the urgency of the situation expressed by the petitioner herein, since he was asked to hand over charge to the other trustee named in the order impugned in the writ petition at once. Since we dispose of the original petition on the preliminary issue we refrain from expressing out opinion on the merits of the rival claim. It is open to the parties to appear before the district court as and when they were called upon to appear before the said court and contest the matter on merits.”

The preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the contesting respondent was therefore upheld by the Division Bench and held as follows:

“Since we permit the petitioner to move the district court under Section 89(1) the impugned order dated 15.1.1998 un