Parties claiming a genuine interest in proceedings that impact their property or legal rights should be granted an opportunity to be heard, notwithstanding procedural delays, to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld.

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :-

“(i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other a ppropriate o rder o r direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P 10 a nd P 14 and quash the same.

(ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate W rit, o rder or direction directing the 3rd Respondent to hear t he p etitioners also before deciding OA 18/2016 within a time f rame t o b e f ixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate W rit o rder or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to consider R P 5 /2026 on merits and to pass appropriate orders within a t ime f rame t o be fixed by this Hon’ble Court till such time t he f urther proceedings in OA 18/2016 may be deferred.”

2. It is stated in the writ petition that Sree Dharmarkovil, Mannarkkad in Palakkad District is a family temple of the petitioners, who belong to Chettiyar community. The said temple does not have any characteristic as a religious institution coming under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (HR & CE Act for brevity).

3. There are no regular poojas and no public participation in the poojas of the temple. The temple is having poojas only on Tuesdays and Fridays in a week.

4. The 4th respondent, Sri. K. Ramakrishnan, one of the members of the family, has filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, with a request to take over the administration of the temple by declaring it as a public temple. Pursuant to the said complaint, O.A. No.18/2016 was registered before the 3rd respondent under Section 57(a) of the HR & CE Act. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the complaint submitted by the 4th respondent and Ext.P2 is the copy of the objection filed by the 5th respondent in the Original Application.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 therein (respondents 5 and 6 herein) have also filed Ext.P3 objection stating that it is to be dismissed. Later, respondents 5 and 6 turned around and submitted Ext.P4 statement before the Deputy Commissioner, giving consent to the Board to take over the temple and its property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners came to know about the collusion between the petitioner in the O.A.

and respondents 5 and 6, the petitioners had filed an impleading petition in the O.A. as I.A. No.18/2025 stating that respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Application are acting against the interests of the owners of the temple.

7. The principal grievance highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the impleading application as per order dated 12.01.2026 (Ext.P10), holding that the application is highly belated and filed with malafides.

8. Impugning Ext.P10 order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners preferred a revision petition as R.P. No.5/2025 before the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. Along with the revision petition, the petitioners have also preferred a stay application as I.A. No.5/2026. But, the Commissioner vide Ext.P14 order has dismissed the application for stay.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Exts.P10 and P14 orders of the Officers of the Malabar Devaswom Board are bad and liable to be quashed. The said orders are passed in total disregard of the statutory provisions and the rules framed under Section 57 of the HR & CE Act.

10. The learned counsel would further submit that there is an apparent collusion between the parties who are the members of the family. Th