A writ of mandamus to compel permission for an event requires proof of legal entitlement, which the petitioner failed to establish.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner, Sri. Rajesh S., states that he along with some other devotees have created and registered a Trust and decided to conduct a spiritual summit consisting of speeches of Sanyasis and Bhajans as ‘Hindu Ekatha Sammelan’.

3. On 16.01.2026, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 request to the President of the Temple Advisory Committee seeking permission for the conduct of the said Ekatha Sammelan and Bhajans at Thamarakulam Nediyanickal Bhagavathy Temple Ground on 01.03.2026 from 4.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. A copy of the request was forwarded to the Sub Group Officer of TDB.

4. The petitioner states that the Temple Advisory Committee has expressed its willingness to permit the temple ground for the aforesaid purpose vide Ext.P2 letter. However, the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, as per proceedings dated 13.02.2026 in ROC No. 2466/2026/M1 has rejected the request of the petitioner to grant permission to use the temple ground for the Hindu Ekatha Sammelan. The petitioner has produced a copy of the said proceedings as Ext.P3.

5. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

a. issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction quashing Exhibit.P-3 order of the 2^nd respondent dated 13.02.2026.

b. issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction, directing the Devaswom Board to permit the petitioner to conduct the Hindu Ekatha Sammelan scheduled to be held on 01.03.2026 in the devaswom ground of Nediyanickal temple as permitted in Exhibit.P-4.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the denial of permission to the petitioner to conduct Hindu Spiritual Summit is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 24 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act , the Board is duty-bound to provide for the educational uplift, social and cultural advancement of the Hindu community.

7. The learned counsel would further submit that the Board has granted permission to conduct the Onam Agricultural Fest in the temple ground. But it denied permission for a spiritual summit of Hindus and Bhajans. The approach of the Travancore Devaswom Board is reprehensible.

8. On the other hand, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, would submit that the proposed programme is a political programme. It is submitted that this Court in W.P.(C) No. 41819 of 2023 has issued directions not to use the temple premises for political purposes.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proposed programme has no political colour; instead, it is intended for the upliftment of the Hindu religion.

10. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Krishna Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and Sri. S. Rajmohan, learned Senior Government Pleader.

11. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and perused the records. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that by Ext.P3 order, the Board has denied permission for the conduct of the Ekatha Sammelan in the temple grounds of Thamarakulam Nediyanickal Devi Temple. The reason stated in the rejection is that the application submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the terms of the Circular dated 18.03.2013.

12. There are rival contentions between the contesting parties as to the objective of the proposed programme.

13. The princip