Sunil Thomas, J.

Since these proceedings are interlinked to each other, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The first petitioner in W. P. (C)No. 16946/2013 is Ambattukavu Kshetra Samrakshna Seva Sangham and the second petitioner is its Secretary. The second respondent is the Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary. The third respondent is the commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The 5th respondent represents the temple Trust. The 4th respondent is Ambattukavu Bhagavathi Kshetra Samithi, a registered association represented by its Secretary. The Ambattukavu Templeoriginally belongedto Karingambilly Swarupam. Since the members of Swarupam were residing far away from the temple, they found it difficult to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple. Hence, the then Karnavar of the Swarupam created a trust by a deed dated 11/8/1993 with six trustees and the right to carry out daily pooja, conduct of festivals and other religious rites were conferred on the Trust, without transferring the ownership of the temple. Temple is situated in a land of about 70. 168 cents.

3. According to the writ petitioners, Seva Samithi was formed by the devotees and local residents for protecting the interest of the devotees, who believed in the temple deity. The Seva Sangham claimed that, upon the request of the Administrative Officer, its members used to assist him in the various temple related activities. When the temple was earlier managed by the 5th respondent Trust, there were serious allegations of mal administration and of misappropriation of temple funds. This was revealed through an audit report of the year 2005. Since, no remedial steps were taken by the officials, some of the devotees approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) No. 706/2005 seeking appropriate action. The writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent commissioner to conduct an enquiry under Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TCHRI Act') and to take necessary steps as provided under the provisions and the relevant statutes. Pursuant to the judgment, an enquiry was conducted by the Audit Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which revealed serious anomalies and misappropriation of public fund. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the third respondent after giving a reasonable opportunity to all concerned. In the report, necessary action under TCHRI Act was recommended. Ext. P2 is the report dated 28/6/2008 of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner(Inspection). Various financial and other irregularities were identified in the above proceedings. Subsequently, the third respondent, after giving notice to all the members of the Trust of the proposed assumption of management of the temple and after conducting due enquiry, issued Ext. P3 preliminary notification dated 22/12/2008 calling for objections to the proposed action. Thereafter, Ext. P4 final notification was issued by the Board on 8th October, 2009, dissolving the committee which was functioning by virtue of the Trust Deed No. 205/1993 and stood removed under Section 41 of the Act. The Administrative Officer, Aluva of the Travancore Devaswom Board was appointed as the Receiver of the Temple under Section 42(1) of the TCHRI Act. The appointment was for a period of three years. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Vaikom was directed to constitute a new temple Advisory Committee in the temple. The Administrative Officer, Aluva was directed to take charge within 15 days until final notification was published.

4. The present grievance of the petitioner herein is that though Exts. P3 and P4 notifications were issued, no further action was taken thereafter. Even though the final decision in accordance with the Rules had been taken by the Devaswom Board, the final notification has not been practically implemented.

5. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent-Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Kshektra Samithi ch