Court mandates adherence to eligibility criteria under the Madras HR & CE Act for appointing non-hereditary trustees, emphasizing the prohibition of active politicians.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

“ⅰ) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order commanding the 1st respondent to restrain from appointing the respondents 7 to 10 as members of the non-hereditary trustee board of Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple, Kunjathur.P.O, Manjeshswar, Kasaragod as they are ineligible pursuant to Exhibit P5;

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P4 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.”

2. The petitioner, Sri. B. Harshavardhan Shetty states that he is a devotee of Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple, Manjeshwar, Kasaragod. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Malabar Devaswom Board is proceeding to appoint respondents 7 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees of Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple without properly considering the complaints filed by him and other persons against their appointment, pointing out the fact that all of them are active workers of CPI(M) and CPI. The learned counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent, Malabar Devaswom Board had invited applications for constituting non-hereditary trustee board of the Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple. Earlier, the petitioner and other devotees raised Exts.P2 and P3 complaints dated 21.02.2023 and 01.06.2023 against the party respondents for their selection as non-hereditary trustees. Even without considering the complaints, party respondents were appointed as non-hereditary trustees. The term of two years of the party respondents had expired. Now, the party respondents again submitted applications for the post of non-hereditary trustees. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the 5th respondent, Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioner and others pointed out the mismanagement, malpractices and misuse of funds by the party respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 within a time frame and to restrain the 1st respondent from appointing the party respondents as they are ineligible pursuant to Ext.P5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents 7 to 10 are disqualified as per Clause 3(f) and (g) of the notice dated 22.10.2025 of the Malabar Devaswom Board, Kasaragod Division. Respondents 7 to 10 are active politicians and office bearers of the political party

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the area committee of Malabar Devaswom Board has not considered the objections and the Board is going to appoint respondents 7 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees, violating the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for the sake of brevity, ‘the Madras HR & CE Act’) and the directives issued by this Court in Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board, 2024 KHC 953

5. In response, Smt. R. Ranjanie, learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, would submit that the appointment of the non-hereditary trustees in the temple would be conducted strictly in accordance with the Madras HR & CE Act, and the directives issued by this Court from time to time.

6. We have heard the submissions of Sri. R. Umasankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. R. Ranjanie, learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board and perused the records.

7. The principal grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that the respondent/Board is trying to appoint non-hereditary trustees, violating the relevant statutory provisions and disregarding directions issued by this Court. According to the petitioner, respondents 7 to 10 are disqualified for