Kerala High Court
Manikandan M P vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:16465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7508 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MANIKANDAN M P,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVA PISHARADI, REGHU NIVAS, THALAYANNAKKAD,
KADAMPUR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678515.
BY ADVS.
K. MOHANAKANNAN
ADARSH MOHAN K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, IST FLOOR - ANNEXE-II.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695009.
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE REP.BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 673003.
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003.
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION),
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003.
5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD PALAKKAD DIVISION,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678013.
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:16465
6 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
PALAKKAD DIVISION AREA COMMITTEE, KENATHUPARAMBU-
KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, PIN - 678013.
7 THE DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OTTAPALAM, OFFICE AT
PUTHANALKKAL TEMPLE, CHERPLASSERY,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679503.
8 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SREE THALAYANAKKAD SIVA TEMPLE KADAMBUR PO,
OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD, PIN - 679515.
9 SURESHBABU K.K,
S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, KOLANCHERY HOUSE,
PUNCHAPADOM PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678633.
10 K.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, KOODATHINGAL HOUSE,
THALAYANNAKKAD, KADAMBUR PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679515.
11 GIREESAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN, PULAKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
KATTUKULAM SOUTH PO PALAKKAD, PIN - 678514.
12 PRABHAKARAN.K,
S/O.LATE GOVINDAN, KULAKUZHI HOUSE, THALAYANNAKKAD,
KADAMBUR PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679515.
13 PRABHAKARAN NAIR,
S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, PRABATH, AZHIYANNUR, KADAMBAZHIPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT HEREDITARY TRUSTEE SREE
THALAYANAKKAD SIVA TEMPLE KADAMBUR PO, OTTAPALAM
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679515.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP
SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:16465
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Thalayanakkad Siva
Temple, Kadampur, Ottapalam, Palakkad District, 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 certiorari to quash Ext.P2
order dated 14.02.2024 of the 5th respondent Assistant
Commissioner, Palakkad, based on decision No.32 dated
09.02.2024 of the 6th respondent Palakkad Division Area
Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board and Ext.P13 order dated
04.12.2024 of the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board in R.P.No.19 of 2024. The petitioner has also
sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 5th respondent
Assistant Commissioner to fill up the post of non-hereditary
trustees in Sree Thalayanakkad Siva Temple, from among the
qualified persons from the list enclosed along with Ext.P1
communication dated 27.11.2023 of the 6th respondent addressed
to the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner (Administration),
Malabar Devaswom Board, including the petitioner, in the post
occupied by respondents 9 to 12.
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:16465
2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.(C)No.7713 of 2024, challenging Ext.P2 order dated
14.02.2024 of the 5th respondent Assistant Commissioner. In that
writ petition this Court granted Ext.P9 interim order dated
27.03.2024, staying the operation of Ext.P2 order dated
14.02.2024 of the 5th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which
is one issued on behalf of the 6th respondent Area Committee to
the extent it relates to the appointment of the 12th respondent as
non-hereditary trustee of the said temple, for a period of three
months. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment
dated 04.06.2024, with the directions contained in paragraph 22
of that judgment, which read thus;
"22. In such circumstances, leaving open the legal and
factual contentions raised by the petitioner and respondents
9 to 12, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions;
(1) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall file a revision
petition before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions under Section 18
of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1951, challenging the appointment of respondents 9 to
12 as Non-Hereditary Trustees.
(2) The 3rd respondent Commissioner shall consider and
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:16465
pass appropriate orders on that revision petition, with notice
to the petitioner, respondents 9 to 12, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of that revision petition, after adverting
to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides and
also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. Till
a decision is taken on the revision petition as above, the
interim order granted on 27.03.2024 staying the operation
of Ext.P2 order will continue.
(3) The order to be passed by the 3rd respondent
Commissioner shall be a 'reasoned order'.
The directions contained in paragraph No.17 of the order
dated 27.03.2024, quoted hereinbefore in paragraph 6 at
page Nos.12 and 13, whereby the 2nd respondent Malabar
Devaswom Board is directed to give a wide publicity to the
notifications issued for making appointments to the post of
non-hereditary trustees in temples, which are controlled
institutions under the Board, and the further directions that
have to be followed while processing such applications, are
made absolute."
3. Ext.P10 judgment of this Court is one rendered after
taking note of the law laid down by this Court in various decisions,
including Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT
388] and Anantha Narayanan and another v. Malabar
Devaswom Board and others [2023 KLT OnLine 1195 : 2023
SCC OnLine Ker 1022].
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:16465
4. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P10
judgment, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 revision petition before the
3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking
the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, challenging Ext.P2 order dated
14.02.2024. That revision petition ended in dismissal by Ext.P13
order dated 04.12.2024, wherein it was held that there is no
convincing material to hold that the persons appointed as non-
hereditary trustees are not eligible to be appointed as such. Mere
allegation without adducing evidence will not be sufficient to
challenge Ext.P2 order. Ext.P13 order passed by the 3 rd
respondent Commissioner is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State, learned
Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2
to 7.
6. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted,
service of notice on respondents 8 to 13 is dispensed with.
7. In Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021
(2) KLT 885], a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:16465
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
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:16465
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.
8. 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
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:16465
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
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.
9. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:16465
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-
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.
10. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:16465
involved in politics is eligible to be appointed as a non-hereditary
trustee in a temple.
11. In Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]
the Division Bench noticed that the Oxford Advanced Learners
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:16465
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 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.
12. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:16465
prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be
considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a
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.
13. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:16465
amended by the Amendment Act of 2008, the Malabar Devaswom
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:16465
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.
14. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
Court held that, in view of the provisions contained in clause (a)
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:16465
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
as a team for the welfare and development activities of the temple
shall be appointed. As per clause (i) of the guidelines, in case
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:16465
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 2nd 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.
15. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:16465
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.
16. 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 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:16465
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,
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:16465
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 Devaswom Board.
17. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:16465
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
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:16465
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 2nd 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
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:16465
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
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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:16465
appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board."
18. 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
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.
19. 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
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:16465
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.
20. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall file a revision
petition before the 1st respondent State, challenging Ext.P13 order
dated 04.12.2024 of the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar
Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions under Section 99 of the
Act.
21. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions;
(i) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner
shall file a revision petition before the 1st
respondent State, invoking the provisions under
Section 99 of the Act, challenging Ext.P13 order
dated 04.12.2024 of the 3rd respondent
Devaswom Commissioner in R.P.No.19 of 2024,
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:16465
along with an application for interim stay.
(ii) The 1st respondent shall consider and pass
appropriate orders on the application for interim
stay, with notice to the petitioner, the 8th
respondent Executive Officer and also
respondents 9 to 12, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of that revision
petition.
(iii) Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall finally
dispose of the said revision petition, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
further period of two months, after adverting to
the legal and factual contentions raised by both
sides and taking note of the law laid down in the
decisions referred to supra, including that laid
down in Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN
20], subject to the interim order dated
20.01.2025 of the Apex Court in SLP (C)No.4484
of 2025.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 27 2025:KER:16465
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7508/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.B.338/2023 L.DIS. DATED 27-11-2023 SENT
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
WITH SCHEDULE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A5
579/2023/MDB/K.DIS DATED 14.2.2024 OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT NO.A5 3465/08 DATED 8-9-2009.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A5-
2734/2011/MDB DATED 24-4-2012 OF THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MP-
2/12/MDB/DATED 14-5-2012 OF THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.4179/98 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM
DATED 5-8-1998 WITH TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED NO.A5/24/2021/MDB(D.DIS)
DATED 26-2-2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MP 2/2012 DATED
23-10-2013 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT
PETITION(C) 7713 /2024 DATED 27-3-2024.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION(C) 7713/2024 DATED 4-6-2024.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 19- 8-2024
WHICH WAS NUMBERED AS 19/2024 BEFORE THE 2
ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY WAS
WP(C) NO.7508 OF 2025 28 2025:KER:16465
ALSO FILED AS IA 33/2024 IN RP 19/2024.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RP 19/2024 DATED 4-
12-2024.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3 1389/2024/MDB
DATED 26-7-2024 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER.
