The court emphasized the need for independent courts to resolve civil disputes and stated that police intervention in civil disputes is not within the jurisdiction of Art.226.

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sree Kuntikana Shankaranarayana Temple, Kasaragod. He is known as 'Muktheswar' (Administrator). His father has been recognised as the hereditary trustee of the said temple by the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Calicut, by Exhibit P1 dated 07/11/1981. It is an order issued under S.57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. On the death of his father, the petitioner was recognised as the hereditary trustee, as per Exhibit P2 proceedings dated 28/08/2008. But, when the petitioner took over the administration, respondents 4 to 13 tried to cause obstruction to the same. So, he caused to issue Exhibit P3 lawyer notice to some of them. The petitioner submits, the said respondents trespassed into the temple premises on 05/09/2008, obstructed the petitioner, threatened him and committed waste there. So, he preferred Exhibit P5 representation before the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod. The police have registered Exhibit P6 first information report against the miscreants. While so, the petitioner moved the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Kasaragod, the first respondent herein. The said respondent by Exhibit P7 communication requested the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod, the 2nd respondent herein to extend necessary police protection to the petitioner to function as the hereditary trustee of the temple. But, the police are not taking any effective action or extending any protection to him, so as to enable him to administer the temple. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate directions to respondents 2 and 3, to implement or enforce Exhibit P7. Consequential reliefs are also sought.

2. Respondents 4 to 12 have filed a counter affidavit. According to them, the hereditary trustee of this temple does not have the usual general power of such trustees in other temples. The trustee has shared most of his powers with a committee formed by the local people. An agreement was entered into between the local people and the hereditary trustee in 1896, concerning the administration of the temple. The parties to that agreement are no more. Later, in the presence of His Holiness Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shreemad Raghavendra Bharathi Swamiji of Ramachandrapura Mutt, Theerthahalli, Exhibit R4(A) agreement was entered into on 05/02/1983, concerning the administration of the temple. It was followed by the formation of a Trust under Exhibit R4(B) trust deed dated 02/09/1983. The petitioners father was a party to that trust deed. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is one of the witnesses to that trust deed. They have also produced Exhibit R4(C) to R4(E) minutes of the meetings of the said Trust. The petitioner had participated in those meetings and many decisions concerning the administration of the temple, including purchase of property, had been taken in them. The respondents further contend that Exhibit P2 order was passed without notice to anyone. A reading of Exhibit P2 would show that a petition was filed before the Assistant Commissioner on 28/08/2008 and on the vary same day, the order was passed. They also submit that Exhibit P7 communication has been issued to the Superintendent of Police by the first respondent, behind their back. None of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act authorises the first respondent to issue that communication. The petitioners father as the hereditary trustee had parted with most of his powers in favour of the Trust. So, even assuming, Exhibit P2 is valid, the petitioner has succeeded as the Muktheswar only with limited powers. Therefore, his attempt to exclude the members of the Trust from the administration of the temple on the strength of Exhibit P2 is ill conceived. The contesting respondents also submitted that they came t