The court ruled that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act does not permit the formation of a committee to oversee the actions of a hereditary trustee.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J

The petitioner, namely, Parassinikadavu Sree Muthappan Seva Sangam, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order dated 08.02.2012 issued by the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ext.P14 order dated 11.05.2015 issued by the 1^st respondent State. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Commissioner to constitute a committee in Parassinikadavu Sree Muthappan Temple, which is a controlled institution under the 2^nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, as directed in Ext.P4 judgment dated 04.09.2008 in W.P.(C)No.15998 of 2005 and Ext.P7 judgment dated 16.07.2009 in W.P.(C)No.30999 of 2008 of this Court and also in the light of decision No.25 dated 22.10.2009 of the 2^nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is regarding the inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board and its officials in ensuring proper management of Parassinikkadavu Sree Muthappan Temple, by the 6^th respondent Madayan. The order which is under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P10 order dated 08.02.2012 of the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, whereby the request for reconstitution of a committee to oversee the administrative actions of the 6^th respondent Madayan stands rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to constitute such a committee to oversee the actions of the hereditary trustees. In Ext.P10 order, the 3^rd respondent Commissioner noticed that for the proper administration of the temple, proceedings are pending before the 4^th respondent Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, under Section 58 of the Act for framing a scheme. Ext.P10 order of the 3^rd respondent Commissioner was under challenge before the 1^st respondent State in a revision petition filed under Section 99 of the Act, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P14 order dated 11.05.2015, on a finding that the prayer for appointing a committee in the place of Madayan, the hereditary trustee, in the absence of an enabling provision in the Act, for divesting the powers and privileges of the hereditary trustee, cannot be allowed, as it would be against law. Therefore, in Ext.P14 order, the 1^st respondent State upheld Ext.P10 order dated 08.02.2012 of the 3^rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board.

3. On 21.10.2015, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 2, 3 and 4. Notice was ordered to others. Service of notice is complete on the party respondents, i.e., respondents 5 and 6.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent State and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4.

5. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 is enacted to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras. The Act received the assent of the President on 27.08.1951. By the Kerala Adoption of Laws Order, 1956 the provisions under the said Act have been made applicable to Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the Malabar District.

6. Clause (11) of Section 6 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act defines the term ‘person having interest’. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (11) of , in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat shall fall under the definition of ‘person having interest’.

7. Clause (9) of Section 6 of t