Kerala High Court
K.K.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:13112
WP(C) NO. 6014 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6014 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K.K.RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 59 YEARS
KUTTIYADAN HOUSE, PRIKALAM P.O.,
KANNUR, PIN - 670705
BY ADVS. J.JULIAN XAVIER
FIROZ K.ROBIN
JOSE. V.V. (THENGATHARA)
ROY JOSEPH
ANIES MATHEW
AKHIL P.C.
ASWATHY SUSAN PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE(DEVASWOM)
SECRETARIATE, THIRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
P.O ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX P.O
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
2025:KER:13112
WP(C) NO. 6014 OF 2025 2
4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
KASARAGODE, NEELESWARAM P.O,
PIN - 671314
5 INSPECTOR
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, TRICHAMBALAM,
THALIPARAMBU, PIN - 670141
6 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
VAYATHUR KALIYAR TEMPLE, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR, PIN - 670703
7 B.DIVAKARAN
S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, BARUKUNNUMMEL HOUSE,
ULIKKAL P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670705
8 BINU V.R
S/O.K.V.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
VATTAMALA KIZHAKKETHIL, PUTHUSSERRY,
IRITTI P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670703
9 SHAJI K.V
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KALLUVETTUKUZHIYIL,
VATTYAMTHODU P.O. PURAVAYAL, KANNUR, PIN - 670633
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. R. RANJANIE,SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:13112
WP(C) NO. 6014 OF 2025 3
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Vayathur Kaliyar
Temple, which is a controlled institution under the 2nd respondent
Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4
representation dated 28.01.2025, pointing out the
ineligibility/disqualification of respondents 7 to 9 for being
appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the said temple in the
process of selection pursuant to Ext.P2 notification dated
09.10.2024. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the
relevant pages of audit report of the temple for the period
between 1996-2017.
2. On 13.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for
admission, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for
the petitioner sought adjournment.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
2025:KER:13112
learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent State
and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board
for respondents 3 to 5. Considering the nature of relief proposed
to be granted, service of notice on respondents 6 to 9 is
dispensed with.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of this
Court in Muarleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board
[2024 (6) KHC SN 20].
5. In Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021
(2) KLT 885], a Division Bench of this Court observed that
temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political
parties should look forward to give political asylum to their
workers. The Division Bench noticed that ours being a highly
politically sensitive State, hardly any person can be traced, who is
completely apolitical or who may not have his own independent
political views. There may be persons having permanent political
ideologies or views whereas there may be equal number of
persons who hold views according to the issues involved. Perhaps
2025:KER:13112
that may be the reason why Kerala has become a State of
political swinging. The Division Bench made it clear that holding
political views or sympathizing with a political denomination
cannot be held a disqualification for nominating anyone to such a
post. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench held
that even assuming that respondents 7 to 9 have some political
leaning or rather they are sympathizers of a political party, that
fact will not disentitle them to be considered for appointment as
non-hereditary trustees. There is clear distinction between
sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active
participation in the activities of the party. The taboo under sub-
clause (g) of clause 3 of the notification issued by the
Commissioner will be attracted only if respondents 7 to 9 are
active politicians or are office bearers of a political party, for
which absolutely no evidence is forthcoming.
6. In Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6)
KLT 388] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us
[Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party noticed that the provisions of
Clauses 3 and 4 of the notification issued by the Commissioner
2025:KER:13112
make it explicitly clear that, for appointment as non-hereditary
trustee of the temple, the applicant should be a regular
worshipper of the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the
betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of
the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry.
Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of
political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active
participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire
appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. Therefore,
it is for the Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure that
any appointment made as non-hereditary trustee of the temples
under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board is strictly in terms
of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in similar
notifications. If found necessary, the format of the application for
appointment as a non-hereditary trustee in the temple under the
control of Malabar Devaswom Board has to be modified in an
appropriate manner, by requiring the applicant to furnish
particulars in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses in
similar notifications. The Commissioner was directed to take
2025:KER:13112
necessary steps in this regard, if found necessary, after placing
before the Malabar Devaswom Board, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.
7. In N.K.E. Chandrashekharan Nampoodiripad v.
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and others
[2023:KER:55922] - judgment dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.
(C)No.29279 of 2023 - a Division Bench of this Court in which one
among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party held that, in view of
the law laid down by this Court in Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6)
KLT 388], for appointment as non-hereditary trustee in TTK
Devaswom, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar
Devaswom Board, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of
the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the betterment
of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in
which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who
are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties,
active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the
activities of a political party cannot aspire to appointment as non-
2025:KER:13112
hereditary trustees of TTK Devaswom. Therefore, the
Commissioner has to ensure that any appointments made as non-
hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which is a controlled
institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, are strictly in
terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in the
notification dated 10.07.2023.
8. In Anantha Narayanan and another v. Malabar
Devaswom Board and others [2023 KLT OnLine 1195 :
2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1022], a Division Bench of this Court in
which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, held that
when clause 3(7) of the notification issued by the Commissioner
for appointment as non-hereditary trustees in the temples, which
are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, is
considered in the light of the interpretation given by this Court in
Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388], no person actively
involved in politics is eligible to be appointed as a non-hereditary
trustee in a temple.
9. In Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]
the Division Bench noticed that the Oxford Advanced Learners
2025:KER:13112
Dictionary defines 'politician' as "a person whose job is concerned
with politics, especially as an elected member of the Parliament,
etc." Such a technical meaning of the word 'politician' cannot be
accepted to understand clause 3(7) in the notification which says
that active politicians or persons holding official posts in any
political party are ineligible. The terms are used disjunctively. So
persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they
hold any post in a political party, are ineligible. On the facts of the
case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that respondents 6 to 8
therein have no case that they have any other profession. It is a
matter of common knowledge that the functioning of a political
party and selection/election of its office bearers is not similar to
public employment. Whichever be the political party, one who is
actively involved in the activities of that political party alone is
ordinarily selected/elected as an office bearer. Having been
selected as office bearers of the political party/DYFI before or
soon after the appointment as non-hereditary trustees,
respondents 6 to 8 cannot contend that they were not active
politicians. In the constitution of DYFI, it is stated that a member
2025:KER:13112
of the DYFI can work in any political party. That does not mean
that the DYFI does not have any political colour. Whether or not it
has any affiliation to any particular political party, what is evident
from the constitution is that the area of activities of DYFI is
politics and related activities. As such it cannot be said that the
activities of DYFI are non-political.
10. In Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]
the Division Bench noticed that, going by the parameters
prescribed in notification, persons who are convicted for more
than six months for offences involving moral turpitude are alone
ineligible to be non-hereditary trustees. It is, however, specifically
prescribed in the notification that persons who apply to be
appointed as non-hereditary trustees shall be idol worshippers
and persons having an interest in the advancement of the temple.
They should also be persons used to be involved in the affairs of
the temple. A person having reverence and adoration for a deity
can alone be treated as a worshipper. A person facing criminal
prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be
considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a
2025:KER:13112
person to be appointed as a trustee in a temple. A trustee is a
person obligated to conduct temple affairs in accordance with
custom or usage. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin
Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court explained the diligence and devotion a trustee of a
temple should have. When those are the necessary qualifications
required for a person to be appointed as a non-hereditary trustee,
and the danger of appointing unqualified and untrustworthy
persons as trustees, the Malabar Devaswom Board shall stipulate
the eligibility criteria in consonance with that. Therefore, the
Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to take a decision in that
regard before proceeding with any new appointment of non-
hereditary trustees in the temples under it.
11. In Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board
and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20], a Division Bench of this
Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party,
in view of the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951, as
amended by the Amendment Act of 2008, the Malabar Devaswom
2025:KER:13112
Board and the authorities under the Board, including the
Commissioner, have essentially the duty and obligation to act in
trust. In view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act,
the trustee of every religious institution is bound to administer its
affairs and to apply its funds and properties in accordance with
the terms of the trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful
directions which a competent authority may issue in respect
thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal
with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his own.
Therefore, in the matter of the appointment of non-hereditary
trustees in religious institutions, the competent authority in the
Board has a duty to act fairly, and the fairness in the action must
be demonstrable from the records and also the decision. The
decision taken by the competent authority should disclose an
assessment of the comparative merits and demerits of the
applicants, with specific reference to the disqualification and
eligibility clauses provided in the guidelines dated 18.05.2004
issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, and the
2025:KER:13112
files should disclose the manner in which such an assessment has
been made by the competent authority. It is after the decision of
the Division Bench in K.P. Vasudevan Namboothiri v. K.C.
Vasudevan Namboothiri - judgment dated 01.04.2004 in O.P.
No. 6131 of 2003 - that the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration)
Department issued guidelines dated 18.05.2004 for the selection
of non-hereditary trustees in the Malabar area under the control
of that Department. That guidelines were issued by the
Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration) Department, who was exercising
the powers under the Act of 1951, presently exercised by the
Malabar Devaswom Board, after its constitution by the
Amendment Act of 2008. Till the framing of statutory rules in the
exercise of the powers under the Act, the aforesaid guidelines
issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, would
govern the field.
12. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
2025:KER:13112
Court held that, in view of the provisions contained in clause (a)
of the guidelines dated 18.05.2004, a person appointed as a non-
hereditary trustee shall be ordinarily a resident in the Taluk in
which the temple is situated. As per clause (b), he shall be a
person who is in the habit of visiting the temple usually. As per
clause (c), he shall be a person believing in idol worship, and
persons who are actively working for the welfare of the
temple/temples may be given preference. In view of the
provisions contained in clause (d) of the guidelines, the following
category of persons need not be considered for appointment
ordinarily (i) busy professionals; (ii) active politicians and office
bearers of political parties; (iii) persons who had encroached
Devaswom lands or against whom Devaswom has filed cases in a
court of law; and (iv) persons who had filed litigations against the
Devaswom. As per clause (e) of the guidelines, when the
comparative merits and demerits are difficult to decide as above,
the educational qualification shall be taken as a determinant
factor. As per clause (f) of the guidelines dated 18.05.2004, while
making an appointment, as far as possible, persons who can work
2025:KER:13112
as a team for the welfare and development activities of the
temple shall be appointed. As per clause (i) of the guidelines, in
case appointments are made, not in accordance with these
guidelines, the reason therefor shall be recorded. The report of
the officer conducting an enquiry as to the suitability of the
applicants shall contain specific remarks with regard to the above
points. Therefore, any appointments made by the 2 nd respondent
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board or the concerned Area
Committee, as the case may be, as non-hereditary trustees of
Devaswoms/Temples which are controlled institutions under the
Malabar Devaswom Board, shall be strictly in terms of the
disqualification and eligibility clauses in the guidelines dated
18.05.2004 issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration)
Department and the law laid down by this Court in Chathu
Achan [(2022) 6 KLT 388] and Anantha Narayanan [2023
KLT OnLine 1195], after eliminating active politicians and office
bearers of political parties, busy professionals, etc. from the zone
of consideration.
2025:KER:13112
13. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
Court considered the question as to whether the eligibility criteria
prescribed in the notification dated 19.01.2022 issued by the
Commissioner inviting applications for appointment as non-
hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple are at
variance with the provisions under the Act of 1951. Relying on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2018) 3 SCC 55], the learned Senior Counsel for
Malabar Devaswom Board contended that when the eligibility
criteria prescribed in the notification dated 19.01.2022 issued by
the Commissioner are in variance with the provisions under
Section 46 the Act, that guidelines would not take precedence
over the statutory provisions.
14. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
Court noticed that in view of the provisions contained in Chapter
II of the Act of 1951, as amended by the Amendment Act of
2008, the Malabar Devaswom Board and the authorities of the
Board, including the Commissioner, have the duty and obligation
to act in trust. In view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of
2025:KER:13112
the Act, the trustee of every religious institution is bound to
administer its affairs and to apply its funds and properties in
accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage of the
institution and all lawful directions which a competent authority
may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary
prudence would deal with such affairs, funds and properties if
they were his own. The notification dated 19.01.2022 issued by
the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, is one issued in
terms of guidelines dated 18.05.2004 issued by the Commissioner
of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Administration) Department. The said guidelines were issued
pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in K.P. Vasudevan Namboothiri - judgment
dated 01.04.2004 in O.P. No. 6131 of 2003 - when it was noticed
that the absence of guidelines or rules would lead to arbitrariness
in the matter of selection and appointment of non-hereditary
trustees, an assessment of the comparative merits and demerits
of the applicants has to be undertaken before appointing non-
hereditary trustees in a religious institution. In the said decision,
2025:KER:13112
the Division Bench noticed that no qualification for non-hereditary
trustees had been prescribed. That guidelines were issued by the
Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration) Department, who was exercising
the powers under the Act of 1951, presently exercised by the
Malabar Devaswom Board, after its constitution by the
Amendment Act of 2008. Till the framing of statutory rules in the
exercise of the powers under the Act, the aforesaid guidelines
issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, would
govern the field. Section 46 of the Act deals with disqualifications
of trustees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 46, a non-hereditary
trustee shall cease to hold his office if he acquires any of the
disqualifications enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) thereto. The
qualifications contained in the notification therein, which is in
terms of guidelines dated 18.05.2004, are not at variance with
the provisions contained in the Act of 1951. Therefore, the
Division Bench repelled as untenable, the contentions to the
contra raised by the learned Senior Counsel for Malabar
2025:KER:13112
Devaswom Board.
15. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
Court issued certain directions in the matter of appointment of
non-hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are
controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in
order to ensure a fair and transparent mechanism for such
appointment, taking into consideration the requirements of the
provisions contained in the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Institutions Act, till rules are made for that purpose under the
said Act. Paragraph 154 of the said decision reads thus;
"154. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board on
the above aspect, we deem it appropriate to issue the
following directions in the matter of appointment of non-
hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are
controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board,
in order to ensure a fair and transparent mechanism for
such appointment, taking into consideration the
requirements of the provisions contained in the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, till rules
are made for that purpose under the said Act.
(i) The notifications issued for the appointment
as non-hereditary trustees in
2025:KER:13112
Devaswoms/Temples, which are controlled
institutions under the Malabar Devaswom
Board, shall be published in a local daily having
wide circulation. The notification shall also be
published in the notice board of the
Devaswom/Temple, at a prominent place, for
the information of the devotees, and also in the
notice board of the concerned Local Self-
Government Institution and the Village Office.
(ii) Once applications are received, the details
of the applicants shall be exhibited on the
notice board of the Devaswom/Temple, at a
prominent place, so as to enable the devotees
to point out the disqualifications, if any, of any
of the applicants, by submitting written
objections before the 2 nd respondent
Commissioner or the concerned Area
Committee, as the case may be, furnishing
therewith their name, address and mobile
number. Those objections shall also be dealt
with appropriately by the 2nd respondent
Commissioner or the concerned Area
Committee, as the case may be, after
obtaining individual reports on those
complaints from the concerned Divisional
Inspector.
(iii) In the case of Devaswoms/Temples in
which appointment of non-hereditary trustees
2025:KER:13112
is made by the concerned Area Committee, the
evaluation of the applicants with reference to
the report of the concerned Divisional
Inspector shall be made by a Committee
consisting of a member of the Area Committee
to be nominated by its Chairman, the
concerned Assistant Commissioner and the
hereditary trustee of the Devaswom/ Temple.
In the absence of a hereditary trustee, the
Tantri or Melsanthi of the Devaswom/Temple
shall be a member of that Committee. The said
Committee shall have a comparative
assessment of the applicants with specific
reference to the eligibilities and
disqualifications provided in the guidelines
dated 18.05.2004 issued by the Commissioner
of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration) Department and
the said assessment shall be the basis for the
appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the
concerned Area Committee.
(iv) In the case of Devaswoms/Temples in
which appointment of non-hereditary trustees
is made by the 2nd respondent Commissioner,
Malabar Devaswom Board, the evaluation of
the applicants with reference to the report of
the concerned Divisional Inspector shall be
made by a Committee consisting of a member
2025:KER:13112
of the concerned Area Committee to be
nominated by the Commissioner, the concerned
Assistant Commissioner and the hereditary
trustee of the Devaswom/ Temple. In the
absence of a hereditary trustee, the Tantri or
Melsanthi of the Devaswom/Temple shall be a
member of that Committee. The said
Committee shall have a comparative
assessment of the applicants with specific
reference to the eligibilities and
disqualifications provided in the guidelines
dated 18.05.2004 issued by the Commissioner
of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration) Department and
the said assessment shall be the basis for the
appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board."
16. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
Board would point out the order of the Apex Court dated
20.01.2025 in SLP(C) Diary No.60879 of 2024, arising out of the
judgment of this Court in Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC
SN 20]. The said SLP is one filed by Malabar Devaswom Board
and its officials, after the dismissal of SLP(C) No.29188 of 2024.
In SLP(C) Diary No.60879 of 2024, while issuing notice to the
respondents, the Apex Court confined the scope of consideration
2025:KER:13112
only with respect to clauses (iii) and (iv) in paragraph 154 of the
judgment in Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] and the
order of stay is also confined to that extent alone.
17. In the order dated 07.02.2025 in W.P.(C)Nos.31991 of
2023 and 45280 of 2024 this Court noticed the submission made
by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board,
after referring to the aforesaid order of the Apex Court that after
complying with the procedure contemplated in clauses (i) and (ii)
of paragraph 154 of the judgment of this Court in
Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20], i.e., consideration
of the objections after obtaining individual reports from the
concerned Divisional Inspector and comparative assessment of
the applicants with specific reference to the eligibilities and
disqualifications provided in the guidelines dated 18.05.2004
issued by the Commissioner of erstwhile Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department shall be
made by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board or the
concerned Area Committee, as the case may be.
18. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
2025:KER:13112
Board would submit that Ext.P4 representation dated 28.01.2025
made by the petitioner pointing out the alleged
ineligibility/disqualification of respondents 7 to 9 for being
appointed as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vayathur Kaliyar
Temple, in the process of selection pursuant to Ext.P2 notification
dated 09.10.2024 shall be considered by the concerned Area
Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board, taking note of the law
laid down by this Court in Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC
SN 20], subject to the interim order of the Apex Court dated
20.01.2025 in SLP(C) Diary No.60879 of 2024.
19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the
concerned Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board to
consider Ext.P4 representation dated 28.01.2025 made by the
petitioner, pointing out the ineligibility/ disqualification of
respondents 7 to 9, for being appointed as non-hereditary
trustees of Sree Vayathur Kaliyar Temple, in the process of
selection pursuant to Ext.P2 notification dated 09.10.2024, with
2025:KER:13112
notice to the petitioner, the 6 th respondent Executive Officer and
also respondents 7 to 9, and after affording them an opportunity
of being heard, after taking note of the law laid down by this
Court in Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20], subject to
the interim order of the Apex Court dated 20.01.2025 in SLP(C)
Diary No.60879 of 2024.
The petitioner shall communicate a copy of this judgment,
along with a copy of the writ petition, to respondents 6 to 9
through Registered Post with acknowledgement due and the
registration slips shall be produced before the 4 th respondent
Assistant Commissioner, along with a certified copy of this
judgment. On receipt of the same, the 4th respondent Assistant
Commissioner shall place the matter before the concerned Area
Committee. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. In the process, the concerned Area Committee shall
also consider other objections, if any, received against the
applicants pursuant to Ext.P2 notification dated 09.10.2024 for
2025:KER:13112
appointment as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vayathur Kaliyar
Temple.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:13112
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6014/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Ext.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2002
IN OA NO. 11/1996 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER HR&CE, KOZHIKODE
Ext.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A3-
4143/2024/ MDB (4) DATED 09.10.2024
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Ext.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF AUDIT
REPORT FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1996
— 2017.
Ext.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28.01.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Ext.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
31.01.2025
