The appointment of non-hereditary trustees must comply with statutory requirements, including notice to hereditary trustees and documented reasons for disqualification.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners, who are devotees of Sree Elamarankulangara Bhagavathi Temple in Koyilandy Taluk, Kozhikode District, which is a controlled institution under the 1^st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, in which the 10^th respondent is the hereditary trustee, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 01.03.2025 of the 4^th respondent Area Committee, Kozhikode Division, whereby respondents 6 to 9 have been appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the said temple, for a period of two years.

2. On 07.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 to 10, returnable by 11.03.2025. By the order dated 07.03.2025, this Court granted an interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P7 order dated 01.03.2025 of the 4^th respondent Area Committee, for a period of one month, thereby restraining respondents 6 to 9 from taking charge as non hereditary trustees of the temple in question or exercising any powers as such. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said order read thus;

“3. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] and the directions contained in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph 154 and also the interim order dated 20.01.2025 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)Diary No.60879 of 2024, we find that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P7 order dated 01.03.2025 of the 4^th respondent Area Committee, Kozhikode Division, Malabar Devaswom Board. 4. In the result, there will be an interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P7 order dated 01.03.2025 of the 4^th respondent Area Committee for a period of one month, thereby restraining respondents 6 to 9 from taking charge as non-hereditary trustees of the temple in question or exercising any powers as such.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P7 order dated 01.03.2025 and also that relating to Exts.P1 to P3 complaints received against the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question.”

3. On 11.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for consideration, respondents 6, 7 and 10 entered appearance through respective counsel, who sought time to file counter affidavit. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 8 and 9. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the order dated 11.03.2025 read thus;

“2. In terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 07.03.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P7 order dated 01.03.2025 and also that relating to Exts.P1 to P3 complaints received against the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in Elamarankulangara Bhagavathi temple, Koyilandi. The files contains a report dated 25.02.2025 of the Divisional Inspector (Page Nos.149 and 150