Point of Law: Religious/Institution/Temple - Appointment of non-hereditary trustees - Petitioner could not make out any valid reason, or ground, to interfere with the appointment of respondents 7 to 9 as non-hereditary trustees of the temple - While making appointments the hereditary trustee was not consulted by Devaswom Board - In fact, such a contention is not available to petitioner he has no case that he is a hereditary trustee of Devaswom or a person authorised by hereditary trustee. Such a right for consultation as provided under Section 39(2) of Act, 1951 is available only to a hereditary trustee - Petitioner, though claimed to be a devotee, is a stranger as far as provision under Section 39(2) is concerned - Also notice that the petitioner had no such case in Revision.

JUDGMENT :

Haripal, J.

Petitioner is a devotee of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya in Malappuram district and claims to be interested in the affairs of the Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi devaswom. According to the petitioner, the temple is governed by a scheme framed in O.A.No.11/81 and the administration is vested with the Board of Trustees consisting of a hereditary trustee and four non-hereditary trustees. The temple comes under the supervision of the Malabar Devaswom Board. From 2009 till 2019 there was no Trust Board for the temple. In 2013, when steps were taken for appointing trustees, W.P.(C) No.30075/2014 was filed by the devotees, which was disposed of by the Ext.P1 judgment. Thereafter, Ext.P2 notification was issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications to fill up the post of non-hereditary trustees. Pursuant to the notification, 15 applications were received, which were examined by the 5th respondent, who conducted interview and gave the Ext.P3 report. Basing on Ext.P3, the 4th respondent gave the Ext.P4 report to the 3rd respondent following which Ext.P5 resolution was taken by the Malabar Devaswom Board and thereafter the Ext.P6 order was issued appointing respondents 7 to 9 and one Radhakrishnan as non-hereditary trustees. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Ext.P6. Challenging the same he moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Ext.P10 judgment, this Court observed that it is an order of the Board revisable under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, that since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, relegating him to invoke that remedy, the petition was disposed of. On the basis of that decision, the petitioner moved the 1st respondent with Ext.P11 revision. But, by Ext.P12 order, the Government rejected the contentions of the petitioner and that prompted him to move this Court again, seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Exts.P5, P6 and P12 and quash the originals of Exts.P5, P6 and P12 by issuing a writ of certiorari;

ii. To declare that the selection of respondents 7 to 9 who are active politicians are ineligible to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Devaswom in the light of Clause 3(g) of Ext.P2 notification;

iii. To direct the 3rd respondent to interdict the respondents 7 to 9 from taking any policy decision in regard to the administration of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Devaswom.”

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 7 to 9 were appointed violating the stipulations in Ext.P2 notification. As per sub-clause (g) of clause 3 of the said notification, active politicians or office bearers of political parties shall not be considered for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. But, except the said Radhakrishnan in Ext.P6, respondents 7 to 9 are active politicians. This vital aspect raised by him before the Government was not considered. Therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside.

3. Supporting the argument, the petitioner has produced Exts.P7 to P9 photographs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had also produced a CD in support of the contentions. According to the petitioner, active politicians and office bearers of political parties should not have been considered for appointment of non-hereditary trustees. He has a further contention that such nominations were made without conducting due enquiry by the 5th respondent and also without consulting the hereditary trustees. These are adverse to the interest of the Devaswom and the temple and therefore, he prayed for quashing Ext.P6.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board.

5. We have no doubt that the temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look forward to give political asylum to their workers. At the same time, ours bein