P. BHAVADASAN. J.

1. All these writ petitions, in one way or other are related to the administration and management of Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy temple.

2. In W.P. (C) 23149 of 2009, the petitioner who was holding the post of hereditary trustee of the temple challenges his dismissal form that post, covered by Exts.P7 and P12 orders in the said writ petition.

3. W.P. (C) 36839 of 2010 is by the Secretary of Sree Vallabha Kshema Samithi, Angadipuram. That is a Samithi constituted from among the members of the families which hold hereditary trusteeship of Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy temple, Samithi challenges Ext.P10 order by which, after the dismissal of Bhanunni Raja, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 23149 of 2009, Sri.Kalidasa Raja was appointed as the fit person as per Section 20 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a temporary measure.

4. W.P. (C) 34920 of 2010 is by the trustee in charge of Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagaavathy Devaswom challenging Ext.P15 order by the Deputy Commissioner refusing to approve certain appointments made by him.

5. W.P. (C) 1934 of 2011 is also by the Samithy, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 36839 of 2009, challenging the appointment and the functioning of Sri.T.T.Vijayakumar as the Manager of the temple.

6. It is agreed to by all the counsel appearing for the parties that the fate of the other three writ petitions will depend upon the outcome of W.P. (C) 23149 of 2009. If the petitioner in that case succeeds in his challenge to the orders already made mention of, then the other writ petitions become almost academic.

7. Since the principal issue involved is the one in W.P.(C) 23149 of 2009, the facts in the said writ petition re being referred to in detail.

8. Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy temple is a public religious institution covered by the Act. As a result of various amendments brought to the Act, Malabar Devaswom Board has been constituted. Ext.P1 is the scheme framed as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioner as well the Board are governed by the terms of the said scheme. The administration of a temple is vested with the hereditary trustee and currently, the petitioner, who is the senior most member of the family is entitled to exercise that authority. The petitioner alleges that recently, there has been some concerted efforts on the part of some interested persons to somehow remove the hereditary trustee and place the temple in the hands of politicians with ulterior motive and in furtherance thereof, anonymous petitions were sent to the Commissioner raising false allegations against the petitioner. An enquiry was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under the Act. Those proceedings were challenged before this court in W.P.(C) 19014 of 2007 and W.P.(C) 22046 of 2007. Those petitions were disposed of by directing that the enquiry be conducted by the Commissioner and till final orders are passed in the proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to continue as the hereditary trustee. In spite of the specific direction issued from this court, the Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct the enquiry which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) Nos.37760 of 2007, 5580 of 2008 and 30469 of 2008. In W.P. (C) 5580 of 2008 the petitioner was directed to furnish a reply to the notice and the petitioner did so, copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. Presumably dissatisfied with Ext.P3, the Deputy Commissioner framed 18 charges and issued memo of charges to the petitioner, which is marked as Ext.P4. This court in the writ petition relating to the subject matter directed that the petitioner he heard on all the matters including the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to initiate proceedings against the hereditary trustee. True copy of the objection is produced as Ext.P5. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner claims that he put forward further contentions as per Ext.P6. According to the petition