IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees must adhere to established eligibility criteria, ensuring that active politicians are disqualified, and the process must be fair and transparent.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Siva of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2024 of the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board in R.P.No.17 of 2024; a declaration that respondents 8 to 10 are not entitled to continue as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple and has no right to manage the day to day affairs of the temple; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to remove respondents 8 to 10 from acting as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple.

2. On 04.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to address the arguments, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Muraleedharan M. and another v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20]

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 6.

4. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024, challenging the proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4^th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which was one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6^th respondent Area Committee, whereby respondents 8 to 10 are appointed as non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, by directing the petitioner to file a revision petition before the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, challenging Ext.P1 proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4^th respondent Assistant Commissioner. Paragraph 26 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 judgment read thus;

“26. Against the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 as non- hereditary trustees in the temple in question, vide Ext. P1 proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4^th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which was one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6^th respondent Area Committee, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 complaint before the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. It is for the petitioner to file a revision petition before the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, with the following directions;

(1) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall file a revision petition before the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, challenging the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question, vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4^th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which was one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the 6^th respondent Area Committee, along with an application for interim stay.

(2) The 3^rd respondent Commissioner shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for interim stay, with notice to the petitioner, the 7^th respondent Executive Officer, respondents 8 to 10 and also additional respondents 11 and 12, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of that application. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent shall finally dispose of that revision petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a f