P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. The common grievance projected in these writ petitions is in respect of the alleged rights to appropriate the amount deposited by the devotees at the 'Sopanam' of the Parassinikkadavu Muthappan Temple, without being appropriated towards the Temple fund, so as to have it distributed among the members of the three different families [Kovval, Kannoth and Vadakkal], who are managing the affairs of the temple. A declaration is sought for to the effect that the amount placed at the 'Sopanam' is 'Dakshina' to the Chief Priest and that the same cannot be termed as 'Kanikka' to the Deity. Challenge is raised also with regard to Ext.P6 order issued by the first respondent/Commissioner of Devaswom to the 'Madayan'/Chief Priest of the temple (petitioner in W.P.(C)30457 OF 2009 and the 4th respondent in the other case) to stop the acts and deeds in appropriating the amounts placed by the devotees at 'Sopanam' and refund the amounts already appropriated, lest further proceedings should follow.

2. W.P.(C)No.30457 of 2009 has been preferred by the Madayan/Chief Priest of the temple, who is the senior most male member of the three families, (who are at the helm of the affairs in relation to the temple) whereas the petitioner in the other writ petition (WP(C) 26300/09), who belongs to one among the three families, is the person next in line to hold the post of 'Madayan', the Chief Priest. The present Madayan [Mukundan Madayan], who is the petitioner in W.P(C)30457 of 2009, belongs to Vadakkal family, whereas the petitioner in the other case by name P.M. Sugunan (who is next in line to be the Chief Priest), belongs to Kannoth family.

3. We heard by Mr. Krishnanunni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 30457 of 2009 and Mr. Lakshminarayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C)No.26300 of 2009. The version of the Addl. 5th respondent/Seva Sangham was projected by Mr. Julian Xavier, the learned counsel for the Seva Sangham and we heard Mr. Mahesh, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom as well.

4. Sree Parassinikkadavu Muthappan temple is one of the important temples in North Malabar, attracting thousands of devotees every day with an annual collection of more than Rs.2 crores. The temple was a private temple in the olden days and by passage of the time, an enquiry was conducted in terms of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in 1926, which revealed that; besides Hindus, even Christians and Muslims worship in the temple and based on the findings in the enquiry and report dated 14.01.1926, it was declared as a 'public temple'. Eventhough the declaration of the temple as a 'public temple' was opposed, the suit filed in this regard was dismissed and this Court concurred with the findings of the Court below. The declaration of the temple as a public temple under the said Act and the Temple Entry Authorisation Act stands upheld by all courts including this Court vide the decision reported in Ramunni Madayan vs. State of Madras [1957 KLJ 777].

5. Though the above temple is a public temple, by virtue of the declaration made in this regard, which has become final, the management of the temple stands vested with three families, who claim to be the owners. The seniormost member of these families is known as Madayan/the Chief Priest. The inflow of amounts as offerings by the devotees was quite enormous and it was allegedly being appropriated by the Madayan and the members of the three families, as distributed among them, of course, after meeting the expenses, which attracted objections from different corners.

6. In the meanwhile, OP. 631/90 dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court came to be disposed of, whereby some general directions were issued directing the Commissioner of the Devaswom to ensure that the temples maintain proper accounts, conduct necessary audit and pursue transactions in a transparent manner. On receipt of a complaint against the Madaya