A temple trust has the statutory right to manage its fixed deposits, and objections from managing committee members must be legally substantiated to impede such management.

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st petitioner is a public temple trust, and the 2^nd petitioner is stated to be the duly elected president of the 1^st petitioner trust. The 1^st petitioner is stated to have made a fixed deposit with the 4^th respondent Society. The petitioners state that in the meeting of the managing committee on 18.01.2023, a decision was taken to withdraw the fixed deposit originally made with the 4^th respondent Society and to deposit the same in the 6^th respondent Bank. With that request, Exts.P1 and P2 are stated to have been filed before the 5^th respondent. However, the 5^th respondent – the Manager of the 4^th respondent Society – informed the petitioners through Ext.P3 that, on the basis of certain complaints raised by some other members of the managing committee as regards the proposed transfer of the fixed deposit to the 6^th respondent Bank, the 4^th respondent Society is not in a position to transfer the afore fixed deposit. The petitioners state that, as directed in Ext.P3, they have complied with the requirements therein by producing the documents along with Ext.P4 letter dated

30.01.2023 addressed to the 5^th respondent herein. Even thereafter, the petitioners complain that the fixed deposit has not been transferred. In such circumstances, the 2^nd petitioner has also submitted Ext.P8 to the 2^nd respondent herein, pointing out about the afore and requesting a resolution of the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and the other managing committee members. It is in such circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court, seeking appropriate directions, as also for quashing Ext.P3 communication issued by the 5^th respondent herein.

2. I have heard Sri.D.Ajithkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Smruthi Sasidharan, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, Sri.Jai Mohan, the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel representing additional respondents 7 to 9 had relinquished the vakalath on 10.04.2025, and this has already been recorded by this Court. Though fresh notices were sent to respondents 7 to 9 and duly served on them, there is no appearance from the side of respondents 7 to 9 or respondents

10 and 11.

3. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 brought to the notice of this Court the complaints filed by the managing committee members as Ext.R4(a) and R4(b). From a perusal of Exts.R4(a) and R4(b), this Court notices that the complaint as regards the transfer of the fixed deposit as sought for by the petitioners herein were raised by none other than additional respondents 7 to 11. However, there is no representation for the party respondents in spite of service of notice.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment in allowing the request made by the petitioners especially when it is not in dispute that the fixed deposit is in the name of the 1^st petitioner herein.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed, directing respondents 4 and 5 to accept the request made as per Exts.P1 and P2 for the transfer of the fixed deposit by the petitioners and act accordingly, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE