DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The bone of contention, in a manner of speaking, between the petitioners and respondents in these three Writ Petitions, is as to the validity of the circulars, one of which, dated 15.10.2010, was issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Malabar Devaswom Board, Kozhikode and the other, dated 20.09.2011, was issued by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. The combined effect of these circulars, as will be stated in detail by us presently, is that certain directions prescribed as ‘guidelines’ have been issued to the Trustees, of the temples under the supervision of the Malabar Devaswom Board (‘M.D.B.’ for short), in the matter of selection and appointment of persons to various posts under such temples. These circulars are impugned by the petitioners as being beyond the statutory competence of the respondents and as being in excess of the powers with them for supervision under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4342/2014 is the Zamorin Raja of Kozhikode, who is the hereditary trustee of forty three temples and sub temples in the Malabar area; in W.P.(C)No.3728/2014, the petitioner is the Welfare Association of the Hereditary Trustees, which is claimed to be an Association formed to protect the interest and welfare of the various Hereditary Trustees of the temples in the erstwhile Malabar area; and an individual, who has been appointed as a Dhobi in the in Pisharikavu Temple, is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20464/2014.

3. The gravamen of the contentions and submissions of the writ petitioners is that under the specific mandate of S.48 of the Act, all vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office holders or servants of a religious institution, shall be filled up only by the Trustee where such office, sought to be filled, is not hereditary. Under the umbra of this statutory provision, the writ petitioners essentially claim that the Devaswom Board or its officers are statutorily incompetent to make any appointment, whether permanent or temporary and when they have no such power, the attempt in issuing the impugned circulars is an indirect method conceptualized by them to usurp such power, which is statutorily invested with the Trustees, by fixing guidelines and conditions which would operate to fetter such rights of the Trustees and deviously empower the Devaswom in controlling and even making such appointments.

4. We have heard Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4342/2014, Sri. M.G. Ashokan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3728/2014 and Sri. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20464/2014. Since all the three Writ Petitions contain substantially similar averments and have sought similar prayers, we are proceeding to dispose of the Writ Petitions by this judgment and for the purpose of convenience, we treat W.P.(C) No.4342/2014 as the lead case and the parties and the documents referred to herein will be as referred and mentioned in W.P.(C) No.4342/2014, unless otherwise specifically stated.

5. Before we attempt to answer whether the impugned circulars are within the field of competence of the respondents in issuing them, a survey of the Act in question would be beneficial in order to ascertain the parameters of authority which are statutorily committed with the Board on one hand and the Trustees/Executive Officers on the other.

6. The Preamble of the Act begins by saying that it is an Act provided for the better administration and governance to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the Madras State. This Act initially had its jurisdiction within the State of Madras. The Malabar State, which was part of Madras, was thus under the seizin of the said Act, as far as the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions