Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The Writ Petitioners challenge Ext.P16 notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner under the Malabar Devaswom Board inviting applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees for the temple in question. This action by the Assistant Commissioner is on the basis of a decision of the Area Committee. In support of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no decision by the Area Committee and there is no jurisdiction for the Area Committee to decide any such matter having regard to the terms of Ext.P1 scheme. He further says that such an action cannot be taken without a prior enquiry as laid down by this Court in Raman Namboothiri v. Chief Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (2004 (1) KLT 945).

2. With the aforesaid, we required the learned counsel for the petitioners to tell us as to whether the first petitioner claims to be the hereditary trustee of the temple in question. The 1st petitioner does not. In fact, there is a hereditary trustee who was under suspension at a point of time. The 1st petitioner was then appointed as a ‘fit person’ in terms of Section 47(3) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charit