K. A Nayar, J.

1. The short question arises for consideration in' this Original Petition is whether the Hindu M.L. As. had to give a declaration that they believe in God and temple worship before exercising their right of electing a person to the Travancore-Cochin Devaswom Boards and further whether a Hindu has to declare that he believes in God and temple worship before getting nominated to the Devaswom Boards.

2. Vacancies having arisen in Cochin and Travancore Devaswom Boards, the second respondent, Shri. K.K. Sankara Ganakan, a retired District Judge, as authorised person under S.5 and 64 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religions Institutions Act issued a notice dated 13-6-1989 to all Hindu M.L.As. of the State of Kerala to attend a meeting to be held between 9.30 a.m. and 12 hours on 6-7-1989 at the Durbar Hall, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum for the purpose of electing a member each to the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. It is mentioned in that notice that if there be a contest, polling shall be held immediately thereafter and results. declared on the same day. Nomination papers had to be presented to him between 10 a.m. and 12 hours at the Durbar Hall on 4-7-1989 and the same will be scrutinised at 3 p.m. on the same day. The election, if required, it is stated, will be held according to Rules mentioned in Schedule II copy of which was also annexed. In the Schedule annexed R.3(b) is given as follows: "3(b) The person nominated shall affix his signature to the nomination paper before it is delivered to the Chairman, stating that he believes in God and professes the Hindu Religion and believes in temple worship and that he is willing to serve as a member of the Board, if elected."

It is stated that R.3(b) as extracted above was a mistake crept in because the Rules amended by Ordinance No. 86 of 1984 was wrongly adopted. The amendment had not taken effect as the Ordinance was lapsed and as soon as the mistake was found out the same was rectified by circular dated 28-6-1989 and the correct rules were enclosed as revised Schedule II. To that effect an affidavit was filed in CMP.16283 of 1989. The correct Rule 3(b) is contained in the revised Schedule II annexed to the letter dated 28-6-1989 which reads as under:

"3(b) Any Hindu member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala may nominate to a duly qualified person who is not subject to any disqualification for election as the member of the Board by delivering to the Chairman between the hours fixed by the Chairman for the receipt of nomination papers, a nomination paper signed by the proposer and another Hindu member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala as seconder and stating the name of the person nominated. The person nominated shall affix his signature to the nomination paper before it is delivered to the Chairman stating that he is willing to serve as a member of the Board, if elected."

The revised rule does not require persons submitting nomination papers to declare that he believes in God and professes the Hindu religion and believes in temple worship. S.6 of the Act provided only that a person shall not be qualified for nomination or election as a member of the Board unless he is a permanent resident of the Travancore-Cochin area and professes Hindu religion and has attained 35 years of age.

3. The petitioner had sent a memorandum on 15-4-1989 to the Governor of Kerala requesting that only those Hindu M.L.As. who give declaration that they believe in God and temple worship should be given the right to participate in election either by getting nominated or by voting and further stating that by the term "Hindu members" it was meant only persons who profess Hindu religion and believe in God and temple worship. The memorandum pointed out that Sri. Saraswathi Kunjukrishnan's term expires on 22-4-1989 and a member has to be elected in her place by Hindu members of the Assembly. It is apprehended that non-believers may also be permitt