Devan Ramachandran, J.

The administration of the Sree Tripuranthaka Devaswom, an ancient temple in the Malappuram District, has called into question certain issues of some portent in this writ petition. The hereditary trustee of the said Devaswom, the petitioner herein, alleges that proceedings are now being pursued by the Assistant Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to appoint Non-hereditary Trustees for administration of the temple and he imputes that such attempts are being made in a surreptitious manner, without him being kept informed.

2. The petitioner's assertion is that as per Exhibit P5 judgment, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an SLP filed against it, the second respondent is bound to consult him and to obtain his views with respect to the appointment of Non-hereditary Trustees in the temple. The petitioner says that the Devaswom is governed by Exhibit P4 scheme, which has obtained approval of the competent authorities in the year 2001 and he concedes that Exhibit P5 judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court permits appointment of Non-hereditary Trustees, but subject to certain conditions. We see that this judgment was delivered in a writ petition filed by the petitioner's predecessor in title who had claimed that as per the Scheme of Administrations, Nonhereditary Trustees are not required to be appointed. The petitioner admits that the ratio in Exhibit P5 judgment, which has now been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, is that Non-hereditary Trustees along with the Hereditary Trustees will be vested with the management of the Devaswom and the Temple.

3. The allegation of the petitioner, as we have already seen above, is that in spite of the binding directions in Exhibit P5 judgment, he has not been consulted by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner when the appointments to the post of Non-hereditary Trustees are now being finalized. According to him, going by the directions in Exhibit P5 judgment, it is an obligation on the part of the second respondent to do so and that any attempt to deviate therefrom is illegal and unlawful. On such assertion, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate direction to the second respondent to consult him at all stages of the selection process of Nonhereditary Trustees of the said temple.

4. We have heard Sri.Achuth Kylas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board.

5. The issues raised in this writ petition are, in our view, completely covered by Exhibit P5 judgment. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court had found that the administration of the Devaswom can be done only as per Exhibit P4 Scheme and that since the said Scheme is not under challenge, it has to be taken that the Scheme has found approval of all the parties concerned. After concluding so, the Division Bench went on to record that the Hereditary Trustee cannot be heard to say that he alone should be vested with the management of the Devaswom and that no Hereditary Trustee can be appointed because the Scheme mandates otherwise. After noticing the guidelines that were published by the then Commissioner of the HR & CE in consultation with the Government, this Court held in paragraph 26 of the said judgment held as under:

“Even if section 39(2) of the Act is intended for appointment of non-hereditary trustees for the first time and for filling up subsequent vacancies, sub-section (5) will apply, even then the Commissioner has to record reasons. Having regard to the purpose for which the Area Committee constituted the Trustee Board for temples which do not come under A-schedule, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner should ascertain the view of the Hereditary Trustee or his fit person so that there will be smooth functioning of the temple. It does not mean that only persons approved by him can