C.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

C.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025

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.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court