Kerala High Court
C.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:20506
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 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
C.GOPINATHAN,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, PARAKKULANGARA THIRUTHITHODI
(H), VILAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 679309.
BY ADVS.
RESMI A.
SREERAGH C.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006.
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM
P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, CIVIL
STATION, TIRUR, PIN - 676101.
5 THE DIVISION INSPECTOR,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR,
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:20506
PERINTHALMANNA DIVISION, ANGADIPPURAM, PIN - 679321.
6 THE AREA COMMITTEE,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
PIN - 678101.
7 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KARIPPAMANNA SIVA TEMPLE, KARINGANAD, VILAYUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679309.
8 HARIDAS.P @ BABY,
AGED 60 YEARS,
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KRISHNALAYAM
HOUSE, VILAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679309.
9 RAMACHANDRAN.P.V.,
S/O. MADHAVAN, PADINJARE VALAPPIL HOUSE, VILAYUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679309.
10 ANIL KUMAR.P,
S/O. MUNDAN, POOKKADATHU (H), VILAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679309.
11 C.M.CHITHRABHANU NAMBOOTHIRI,
CHUMARAKANDATHU MANA, THATHANAMPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679337.
12 RAJESH NAMBOOTHIRI,
PANAMPATTA MANAKKAL, VILAYOOR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN -
679309.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP;
SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:20506
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Siva of Sree
Karippamanna Siva Temple, which is a controlled institution under
the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2024 of the 3rd respondent
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board in R.P.No.17 of 2024; a
declaration that respondents 8 to 10 are not entitled to continue as
non-hereditary trustees of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple and has
no right to manage the day to day affairs of the temple; and a writ
of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to remove
respondents 8 to 10 from acting as non-hereditary trustees of Sree
Karippamanna Siva Temple.
2. On 04.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for
consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to
address the arguments, taking note of the law laid down by this
Court in Muraleedharan M. and another v. Malabar
Devaswom Board and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20].
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and also the
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:20506
learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for
respondents 2 to 6.
4. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.(C)No.6396 of 2024, challenging the proceedings dated
01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, which
was one issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of the
6th respondent Area Committee, whereby respondents 8 to 10 are
appointed as non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question.
That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, by directing
the petitioner to file a revision petition before the 3 rd respondent
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions
contained in Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, challenging Ext.P1 proceedings
dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner.
Paragraph 26 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 judgment read
thus;
"26. Against the appointment of respondents 8 to 10 as non-
hereditary trustees in the temple in question, vide Ext.P1
proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4th respondent Assistant
Commissioner, which was one issued based on Decision No.11
dated 25.09.2023 of the 6th respondent Area Committee, the
petitioner submitted Ext.P11 complaint before the 3rd
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:20506
respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. It is for
the petitioner to file a revision petition before the 3 rd
respondent Commissioner, invoking the provisions under
Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem
it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, leaving open the
legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, 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 3 rd 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 8 to 10 as
non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question, vide
Ext.P1 proceedings dated 01.11.2023 of the 4 th
respondent Assistant Commissioner, which was one
issued based on Decision No.11 dated 25.09.2023 of
the 6th respondent Area Committee, along with an
application for interim stay.
(2) The 3rd respondent Commissioner shall consider
and pass appropriate orders on the application for
interim stay, with notice to the petitioner, the 7 th
respondent Executive Officer, respondents 8 to 10 and
also additional respondents 11 and 12, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of that application. Thereafter,
the 3rd respondent shall finally dispose of that revision
petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:20506
within a further period of two months; after adverting
to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides
and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to
supra.
(3) The order to be passed by the 3rd respondent
Commissioner shall be a 'reasoned order'."
5. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P1
judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 revision petition before
the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which
ended in dismissal by Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2024 on the ground
that there is no convincing material to hold that respondents 8 to
10 herein are not eligible to be appointed as non-hereditary
trustees of Sree Karippamanna Siva Temple. Further, the 3rd
respondent did not find any procedural lapse or infirmities on the
part of the 4th respondent Assistant Commissioner, with regard to
the appointment of non-hereditary trustees, based on the decision
taken by the 6th respondent Area Committee. Along with this writ
petition, the petitioner has placed on record Exts.P6 to P13
documents in support of the contention that respondents 8 to 10
are not eligible to the appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the
temple in question.
6. In Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:20506
(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 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. 7676 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:20506
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.
7. 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. 7676 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:20506
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.
8. 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:20506
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.
9. 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. 7676 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:20506
involved in politics is eligible to be appointed as a non-hereditary
trustee in a temple.
10. 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. 7676 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:20506
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.
11. 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. 7676 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:20506
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.
12. 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:20506
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 files should disclose the manner in which such
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:20506
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.
13. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
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-
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:20506
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 appointments are made, not in accordance with
these guidelines, the reason therefor shall be recorded. The report
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:20506
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.
14. 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:20506
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.
15. 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 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:20506
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 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:20506
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.
16. 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;
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:20506
"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 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:20506
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
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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:20506
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
appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board."
17. 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:20506
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.
18. 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
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:20506
(Administration) Department shall be made by the Commissioner,
Malabar Devaswom Board or the concerned Area Committee, as
the case may be.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner shall file a revision petition before the 1st respondent
State, challenging Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2024 of the 3rd
respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the
provisions under Section 99 of the Act.
20. 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.P4 order
dated 21.10.2024 of the 3rd respondent
Devaswom Commissioner in R.P.No.17 of 2024,
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 7th
respondent Executive Officer and also
respondents 8 to 12, as expeditiously as possible,
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:20506
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. 7676 OF 2025 27 2025:KER:20506
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7676/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 12.04.2024 IN WP(C) NO.6396 OF
2024.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED
07.07.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS 8 TO 10 IN RP.NO.17 OF 2024
DATED 19.08.2024.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.10.2024 PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
IN R.P. 17 OF 2024.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF FLEX BOARD SHOWING THE
CONSTITUTION OF ULSAVAGHOSHA COMMITTEE IN
SREE KARIPPAMANNA SIVA TEMPLE DATED
26.01.2025.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE FACEBOOK
POST SHOWING THE PARTCIPATION OF 8TH AS WELL
AS THE 10TH RESPONDENT IN A POLITICAL
MEETING OF CPI(M) KARINGANAD BRANCH DATED
19.09.2021.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF A FACEBOOK
POST DATED 27.11.2020 POSTED BY THE 8TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF FACE BOOK
POST OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.11.2020.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF FACE BOOK
POST OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2020.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF FACE BOOK
POST OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2021.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF FACE BOOK
POST OF SRI NOUFAL K.P DATED 27.09.2024.
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 28 2025:KER:20506
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF FIR.NO.0117 OF 2023 LODGED IN
KOPPAM POLICE STATION DATED 02.04.2023.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 17.08.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF
THE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE COMPLAINTS
GIVEN BY SRI.MANOJ KUMAR AND THE DEVOTEES OF
KARIPPAMANNA
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
18.01. 2024.
