Disqualifications for temple trustees must be strictly adhered to per statutory provisions and previous court directives.

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 of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the Respondents 1 to 5 not to appoint Respondents 7 to 11 as Non Hereditary Trustees of Sree Koothali Kammoth Mahavishnu Temple Perambra Kozhikode since they are disqualified as per Exhibit P1;

(ii) To declare that the 9th Respondent who is an elected member of the Grama Panchayat and the 10th Respondent who is a Government servant are fully disqualified as per Clause 3(f) and (g) of Exhibit P1;

(iii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the Respondents 3 and 4 to issue fresh notification and to appoint qualified persons as Non Hereditary Trustees for administration of Sree Koothali Kammoth Mahavishnu Temple, Permabra in Kozhikode District;

(iv) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the Respondents 4 and 5 to finalise Exhibit P3 taking note of the objections in Exhibit P4 and to pass appropriate orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. The petitioner, Sri. Anilkumar N, states that he is an ardent devotee of Sree Koothali Kammoth Mahavishnu Temple, Perambra, Kozhikode. The said temple is under the supervisory control of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Kozhikode as per Ext. P1 notice dated 05.08.2025 invited applications for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees to the said temple. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, seven applications were submitted, including those of respondents 7 to 11. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent published Ext.P2 notice dated 09.09.2025 detailing the names and addresses of the seven applicants and inviting public objections before confirming the selection of those candidates.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents 7 to 11 are disqualified as per Clause 3(f) and (g) of Ext.P1. Respondents 7 to 10 are active politicians and office bearers of the political party and the 11th respondent is a Government servant working as a Health Inspector. Furthermore, the 9th respondent, Biju A.C, is an elected member of Koothali Grama Panchayath.

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 11 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, Ext.P1 notification and the directives issued by this Court from time to time.

6. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K. Mohanakannan, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. R. Ranjanie, learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board and pursued 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 11 are disqualified for appointment under Clauses 3(f) and 3(g) of Ext.P1 notification.

8.