JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is stated to be the senior most male member of Pathirissery Illam, who is entitled to be the Thantri of Sree Azhakodi Devi Temple, Kozhikode, which is a controlled institution under the 2nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 order dated 31.05.2024 of the Commissioner-in-charge (the Deputy Commissioner, who was holding charge of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board) in A.P.No.4 of 2024, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 61(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, against Ext.P7 order dated 01.02.2024 of the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.18 of 2022, which was one filed by the petitioner herein invoking the provisions under Section 57(e) of the Act, for a declaration that he is entitled to be appointed as the Thantri of Sree Azhakodi Devi Temple and to restrain the 6th respondent herein from performing as the Thantri of that temple.

2. In O.A.No.18 of 2022, the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner passed Ext.P7 order holding that the petitioner herein, being the senior most male member of Pathirisseri Illam, is entitled to perform as the Thantri of Sree Azhakodi Devi Temple. In A.P.No.4 of 2024 filed by the 6th respondent, Ext.P9 interim order dated 28.02.2024 has been granted in I.A.No.9 of 2024, staying the operation of Ext.P7 order dated 01.02.2024 in O.A.No.18 of 2022, pending disposal of A.P.No.4 of 2024. Thereafter, by Ext.P11 order dated 31.05.2024, A.P.No.4 of 2024 was allowed by setting aside Ext.P7 order dated 01.02.2024 of the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.18 of 2022 and holding that the 6th respondent can continue as Thantri of Sree Azhakodi Devi Temple. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

3. On 21.08.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 and 6, returnable by 27.08.2024. This Court granted an interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P11 order in A.P.No.4 of 2024, for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended by two months on 12.09.2024.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent.

5. The contention raised in the writ petition is that Ext.P11 order is one passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is holding charge of the Commissioner, absolutely without any jurisdiction. Such an appeal has to be decided by the Commissioner appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 8C of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. In support of that contention the law laid down by this Court in Gangadharan Nair v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2013 (3) KLT 1017] is relied upon.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would point out that the Deputy Commissioner, who passed Ext.P7 order dated 01.02.2024 in O.A.No.18 of 2022, is being considered for promotion as the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. He cannot hear A.P.No.4 of 2024 as the Appellate Authority. The learned Senior Counsel would point out the provisions contained in Section 99 of the Act, which deals with the power of the State Government to call for the record of the Board or the Commissioner or any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner or any Area Committee or of any Trustee in respect of any proceeding, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided under the Act.

7. During the course of arguments, there is no serious dispute to