The court emphasized that hereditary trustees must have their rights respected and that renovation approvals must comply with legal provisions, allowing disputes to be resolved in appropriate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by hereditary trustees of Sree Pathukudi Apathukatha Mahaganapathi Temple, Mannarkad, Palakkad, which is a controlled institution under the 2^nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, seeking the following reliefs;

“i) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 2 to 8 not to proceed with the renovation of the 6^th Respondent temple, not to collect any money from any one for the renovation of the temple pending the disputes raised by the 9^th Respondent against the hereditary trustees of the temple including the petitioner herein are finalized;

ii) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to call for the entire records culminated in Ext.P13 order and to quash the same;

iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to initiate appropriate enquiry proceedings against the alienations of the large extent of landed properties of the 6^th Respondent temple by the 9^th Respondent as revealed by him in Ext.P9 statement and to further direct to take appropriate action to recover such properties in accordance with law;

iv) To declare that the constitution and functioning of the 7^th Respondent Committee in the 6^th Respondent temple is unlawful and that they have no right to collect any amount in the name of the 6^th Respondent temple;

v) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 7 and 8 to pay the entire amount collected by them for the purpose of renovation of the temple to the temple accounts forthwith”

2. The Petitioner, who is one among the hereditary trustees of Sree Pathukudi Apathukatha Mahaganapathi Temple, Mannarkad, Palakkad, filed this writ petition alleging hasty proceedings on the part of the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officers, hand in glove with the 9^th Respondent, who allegedly alienated extensive areas of landed properties of the temple in blatant violation of the statutory provisions. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in the year 2021, when the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, as per Ext.P1 order dated 08.01.2021 in O.A.No.2 of 2020 appointed 9 hereditary trustees including the petitioner herein, the 9^th Respondent filed a civil suit challenging the same and obtained Ext.P4 order dated 29.10.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 filed in that suit, which is under challenge in FAO No.80 of 2021 before this Court. When two more hereditary trustees were approved by the 4^th respondent Deputy Commissioner as per Ext.P5 proceedings dated 19.03.2021, 9^th Respondent filed a complaint against them, and as per Ext.P7 order dated 03.10.2023 those trustees were suspended by the Deputy Commissioner as per order in I.A.No.44 of 2023 in M.P.No.04 of 2022. Accordingly, all the Hereditary Trustees of the temple have been kept out of administration by the 9^th Respondent. In Ext.P7 order, the nephew of the 9^th respondent is appointed as the Fit Person to enable the 9^th respondent to continue in active involvement in the temple affairs. Ext.P9, which is a statement earlier submitted by the 9^th respondent before the Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board shows that he had