Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for disputes over pooja rights, which should be resolved in civil proceedings.

Heard Mr. Omar Salim, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. Kiranlal, learned counsel for the 7^th respondent, and Mr. S. V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Ms. Chithra Johnson, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

2. The dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, as the writ petitioners claim the right to perform their duties and discharge their functions at the Undikavu Shrine in the Oachira Parabrahma Temple on the basis of Exts. P3 to P6 identity cards.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 10/the appellants, while denying paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the identity cards were issued to Mr. Vasu, the father of respondent Nos. 6 to 10, and that upon his demise, the right devolved upon respondent Nos. 6 to 10, who claim the exclusive right to perform the customs and duties at the said temple.

4. The dispute, therefore, is essentially with respect to the right to perform pooja at the said temple. Without deciding such right, even prima facie, in appropriately instituted civil proceedings, the direction to render Police assistance based on Exts. P3 to P6 may not have been the proper course. There must be an establishment of a prima facie right to enter the temple and perform the poojas, and the said issue can be more appropriately decided in a civil suit. The writ petitioners, instead of filing a civil suit, approached the writ court relying upon Exts. P3 to P6, the authenticity of which is now in dispute.

5. It further appears that O.S. No. 42 of 2023, instituted by respondent Nos. 6 to 10, is pending before the Munsiff Court, wherein the said respondents have sought a declaration of their right as Sookshipukars of the Undikkavu Shrine consequent to the death of their father, along with a consequential injunction. In the said suit, the temple administration committee is the 2^nd defendant and the 1^st petitioner in the writ petition is the 1^st defendant. The existence of the said suit was not disclosed in the writ petition. Moreover, the writ petitioners have filed petitions in O.S. No. 1 of 2006 before the District Court, Kollam, seeking to implead themselves and claiming a right over the income from the Undikkavu Shrine.

6. Having regard to the nature of the disputes pending before the civil court, the writ petitioners ought to have approached the civil court in the pending proceedings or instituted a fresh proceeding, as the writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. We are informed that in the pending proceedings, Exts. P3 to P6 are not presently under challenge and that there is no order of injunction operating against the writ petitioners from entering the temple and performing their duties. Having regard also to the stand taken by respondent Nos. 6 to 10 before the learned Single Judge that they have not in any manner prevented, obstructed, or interfered with the conduct of poojas by the writ petitioners, there was no necessity for granting Police protection. There was no sufficient material before the learned Single Judge to arrive at a conclusion that there was a likelihood of a breakdown of law and order in the absence of such protection.

8. In view of the clear stand of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 that they are not obstructing, preventing, or interfering with the conduct of poojas by the writ petitioners, Police protection is not warranted.

9. Accordingly, the directions in the impugned judgment stands vacated. The parties are at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs in the pending proceedings or, if so advised, by instituting fresh proceedings to protect their rights.

10. In the event the writ petitioners are