JUDGMENT :

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

Sree Pookkottukalikavu Temple, Kadambur in Ottapalam Taluk is a Temple under the administrative control of Malabar Devaswom Board. The 5th respondent Executive officer is in charge of the administration of the Temple. A Board of Trustees constituted as per the orders of the Area Committee under the provisions of Section 41 read with Section 39(5) of the Madras Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 is managing the affairs of the Temple. As per Ext.P1 order dated 20.02.2021, respondent Nos.6 to 8 were appointed as non-hereditary trustees in the Temple. The petitioners allege that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are not disqualified to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees for the reason that they are active politicians and involved in several criminal cases. Pointing out a few specific instances for establishing such allegations, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation filed by the petitioners and the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 as per Ext.P1 may be stayed till orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners.”

2. On 19.10.2022, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice was ordered to respondent Nos.5 to 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, this Court passed an interim order restraining respondent Nos.6 to 9 from dealing with the fixed deposit of Rs.60 lakhs in the name of the Temple in any manner until further orders.

3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit justifying that the appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 9 was done following the proper procedure. It is further contended that the petitioners have filed a representation, Ext.P8 only after the expiry of 18 months from the date of appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 9. The petitioners without affording a reasonable time to take a decision on Ext.P8, rushed to this Court with this Writ Petition.

4. Respondent No.5 filed a counter affidavit taking a similar stand as that of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 filed a counter affidavit claiming that there was no disqualification for them at the time of appointment. They took the stand that they were not holding any post in any political party, at the time when they were appointed as nonhereditary trustees. They would contend that on the basis of Ext.P1 they took charge as non-hereditary trustees on 24.02.2021 and in the meeting of the Board of Trustees, the 6th respondent was elected as the Chairman of the Board. They have been managing the affairs of the Temple without giving room for any complaint. However, the petitioners out of political rivalry had submitted Ext.P8 representation much after respondent Nos.6 to 9 assuming charge. The Writ Petition has been filed without any basis and it is not maintainable.

5. They further would contend that on 23.10.2021, the 6th respondent was deputed as Secretary of a Local Committee of C.P.I.(M). He therefore did not function as the chairman of the Board thereafter. In the meeting held on 06.05.2022, the 7th respondent was selected as the new Chairman. Later, the 7th respondent was deputed as the Secretary of Pookkottukavu Centre Branch of C.P.I.(M) and therefore he resigned as Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

6. The 8th respondent is not an office bearer of any political party as alleged by the petitioners. He was the Meghala Secretary of DYFI from January 2021 to December 2021. Since DYFI is not a political par