JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The 1st petitioner is the trustee and the 2nd petitioner is the President of Pandallur Devaswom. The petitioners 3 to 7 are the members of the Administrative Committee of the Temple. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 04.02.2022 of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby the 1st petitioner was removed from the trusteeship and other petitioners were removed from the administration of the Temple in question. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to allow the 1st petitioner to continue as trustee and allow other petitioners to continue as Administrative Committee members of the Temple.

2. On 10.02.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to file an application to implead the Kshetra Bharana Samithy and also its Managing Trustee, Sri. Sasidhara Raja, as additional respondents in this writ petition. By the order dated 11.02.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022, the said Samithy and its Managing Trustee were impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7.

3. On 15.02.2022, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking an order to accept Exts.P6 to P18 as additional documents. On 15.02.2022, the respondents 6 and 7 have filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 21.02.2022, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned counsel for the party respondents.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on Ext.P5 minutes dated 20.11.2018 of the Temple Advisory Committee of Sri Pandallur Shiva Bhagavathy Kshethram. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would point out that the 3rd respondent, namely, K.G.Sahadevan, has already filed a complaint before Kunnamkulam Police Station alleging that his signature found in Ext.P5 minutes is forged and it appears that a crime has already been registered by the Police. The learned counsel would further point out that in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7 serious disputes have been raised against the claim made by the 1st petitioner for approval of his appointment as the Managing Trustee of the Temple in question.

6. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we find that the legality or otherwise of Ext.P4 order dated 04.02.2022 of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby the 1st petitioner was removed from trusteeship can be agitated before the concerned District Court, invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. An order passed by the District Court can be challenged by the person aggrieved by filing an appeal before this Court, invoking the provisions under sub- section (2) of Section 89 of the said Act. Similarly, petitioners 2 to 7, who are removed from the administration of the Temple in question, can challenge their removal by invoking the statutory remedy provided under the Act.

7. In Radhakrishna Kurup v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others [2004 (1) KLT 437] a Division Bench of this Court held that since a petition filed before the District Court under sub- section (1) of Section 89 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act is not a suit, as provided under Section 124 of the said Act, the petitioner need not give any notice as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Act.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would point out that the Deputy Secretary of the Board has submitted an enquiry report dated 03.12.2021, which is reference No