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 prop