Where a statutory revision petition is pending against an administrative order, the High Court may direct the concerned statutory authority to dispose of the appeal/revision within a fixed timeframe rather than adjudicating the merits of the challenge under Article 226.

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 appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records culminated in Ext.P11 order and to quash the same;

ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records culminated in the decision dated 21-02-2026 taken by the 4^th Respondent Area Committee to appoint the Respondents 7 to 10 herein as Non-hereditary Trustees of Kadakkara Sree Dharmashastha Temple, and to quash the same;

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 4 and 5 to conduct an inquiry on Exhibit P10 Representation submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders within a specific time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iv) To declare that the respondents 7 to 10 being the President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and member of the Kadakkara Sree Dharmashastha Kshethranirvahaka Committee, which was an unauthorized Committee the functioning of which was terminated as per exts.P5 and P6 orders and which has collected large funds in the name of the temple without proper sanction from the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board, having not submitted the income expenditure Statement to the temple and having not remitted the “cash in hand” as shown in Exhibit P3 Annual Report, so far to the 6^th Respondent temple, are not eligible to be appointed as non-hereditary Trustees of the 6^th Respondent Temple;

v) To declare that the persons who are the members of the non-hereditary Trustee Board cannot continue for consecutive terms automatically without conducting proper enquiry regarding their eligibility for such appointment;

2. The petitioner, C.M. Gopinathan, states that he is an ardent worshiper of the deity of Kadakkara Sree Dharmashastha Temple. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order dated 03.03.2026 of the 5^th respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, appointing respondents 7 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees of the aforesaid Temple.

3. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. R. Ranjanie, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, and Smt. Daisy A. Philipose, the learned counsel for the party respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents

7 to 10 are active politicians and members of the Political Party, namely, Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)). The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Ext.P11 order is vitiated by arbitrariness and it is violative of Ext.P1 notification, which fixes the eligibility criteria for the selection of the non-hereditary trustees.

5. The learned counsel would further point out that Ext. P11 order is violative of the dicta laid down by this Court in Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala, 2022 (6) KLT 388, Anantha Narayanan and Another v. Malabar Devaswom Board, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker. 1022, Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others, 2021 (2) KLT 885, Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others, 2024 (6) KHC SN 20, and Balan v. Malabar Devaswom Board, 2025 KHC 1935

6. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred a Revision Petition as R.P. No. 11/2026 before the 3^rd respondent, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, challenging Ext. P11 order. The grounds stated in the Writ Petition and the Revision Petition are identical, an