Padmakumar P. and Mohanachandran v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/24TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 22208OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1PADMAKUMAR P. AGED 43 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, KOTTAYIL, KOTTAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679518 ``` ``` 2MOHANACHANDRAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O RAVUNNIKURUPPU , KALARICKAL(HOUSE), KOTTAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 679513 ``` ``` BY ADVS. KRISHNADAS P. NAIR K.L.SREEKALA HARIDAS P.NAIR M.RAJESH KUMAR M.A.VINOD SHINTO THOMAS PRASOON.K.P ANU PRABHAKAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD, MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD OFFICE, ERANJIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006, PIN - 673006 ``` ``` 2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679513 ``` 2 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 - **`3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THIRUVILAYANADU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, KOTTAPURAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRIC, PIN - 679513`** - **`4 INSPECTOR DEVASWAM BOARD, MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT, PIN - 679513`** - **`5 RAJENDRAN A. S/O KUNJUNNI GUPTAN AGED 51 YEARS, ARANGATTIL HOUSE KOTTAPURAM PO KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679613`** - **`6 SURESH MT S/O UDAYAVARMMANUNNI, AGED 45 YEARS, KOTTAPURAM PO KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679613`** - **`7 MURALI MOHAN K S/O HARIDASAN, AGED 45 YEARS, POTTIVEETTIL, KOTTAPURAM PO, KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679613`** - **`8 SASIKUMAR A S/O NARAYANAN NAIR A, AGED 36 YEARS, ARANGATTILHOUSE, KOTTAPURAM P O, KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679613`** - **`9 KESAVADAS P. S/O GOVINDAN, AGED 55 YEARS, ARANGATTIL HOUSE KOTTAPURAM PO KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679613`** - **`10 AYYAPPAN PT S/O SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, PALAKANDATHIL , KOTTAPURAM PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679613`** - **`11 SIVASANKARAN S/O HARIDASAN, AGED 60 YEARS, KOTTAPURAM PO, KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679613`** - **`12 K. A JAYASREE D/O MV GANGATHARAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, VADAKKEPPATTU, KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679013`** ## **`13 PRESSANNAKUMAR KK S/O RAVUNNIKURUPPU, AGED 60 YEARS,`** 3 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 ``` KALARICKAL(HOUSE), KOTTAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 679513 ``` ``` 14HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, THIRUVILAYANADU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, KOTTAPURAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679513 ``` - **`15 THE AREA COMMITTEE PALAKKAD DIVISION, C/O THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679513`** ## **`16 THE CHAIRMAN`** ``` AREA COMMITTEE, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679513 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN KRISHNADAS P. NAIR ``` ## **`SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN- STANDING COUNSEL- MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are the devotees of Thiruvalayanad Bhagavathy Temple, Palakkad, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 22.06.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Commissioner appointing respondents 6 to 8 as non-hereditary trustees in the said temple, based on the decision taken by the Area Committee, Malabar Devaswom Board, Palakkad, headed by the additional 16[th] respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to consider Ext.P4 representation dated 03.06.2023 submitted by the petitioners and stop the appointment and assumption of charge by respondents 6 to 8 based on Ext.P7 order. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Commissioner, Palakkad issued Ext.P1 notification dated 08.02.2023 inviting applications for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees of Thiruvalayanad Bhagavathy Temple. As per clause 3(7) of Ext.P1, active political 5 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 workers are not eligible to become non-hereditary trustees. As per clauses 4(b) and (c) of Ext.P1 notification, the applicant shall be a regular worshiper of the temple, who shall be an idol worshipper and a person having an interest in working for the advancement of the temple. Among the applicants, 9 candidates were invited for an interview, as evident from Ext.P2 notice. The petitioners, who came to know that respondents 6 to 8 were going to take charge as non-hereditary trustees on 06.07.2023, approached the 4[th] respondent Inspector, by submitting Ext.P4 representation dated 03.07.2023, with a copy to the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Commissioner, and requested not to appoint them as they are active party workers and as such, not eligible for appointment as non-hereditary trustees of the temple. In the meeting of the Area Committee held on 20.06.2023, the complaint made by the petitioners was considered as item No.25, which was rejected as evidenced by Ext.P6. Thereafter, based on the decision taken by the Area Committee, the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Commissioner issued Ext.P7 order dated 22.06.2023, by appointing respondents 5 to 8 as the non-hereditary trustees of Thiruvalayanad Bhagavthy Temple. 3. On 12.07.2023, when this writ petition came up for 6 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1, 2, 4 and also for additional respondents 15 and 16. This Court issued notice on admission by speed post to respondents 3, 5 to 13 and also to the additional 14[th] respondent, returnable within four weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board submitted that the non-hereditary trustees appointed in terms of Ext.P7 order have already taken charge. In the order dated 12.07.2023, this Court made it clear that their appointment as non-hereditary trustees, in terms of Ext.P7 order, will be subject to further orders to be passed in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 1, 2, 4 and additional respondents 15 and 16 and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8. 5. Service of notice is not complete on respondents 5, 9, 10, 11 and also the additional 14[th] respondent. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the unserved respondents is dispensed with. 6. The challenge made in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order dated 22.06.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Assistant 7 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 Commissioner, which is one issued based on the decision taken by the Area Committee headed by the additional 16[th] respondent, whereby respondents 6 to 8 are appointed as non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question. Relying on the materials placed on record as Ext.P5, the petitioners would contend that respondents 6 to 8 are disqualified from being appointed as nonhereditary trustees of the temple. 7. In **Sreedharan Nambeesan P. v. Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board and Others [2018 (2) KLT 115]** the issue raised before a Division Bench of this Court was whether the hereditary trustee of a temple would have any right to be given notice before a non-hereditary trustee is being appointed by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, under Section 39(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held as follows; “11. This is not to say that when the Commissioner invokes his power under Section 39(5) the Hereditary Trustee is completely divested of any say. The power vested with the Commissioner is to act fairly, judiciously and in a manner that behooves his office, being the seneschal of the various temples and institutions under his command. The power of the Commissioner being bridled by the section itself, not to 8 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 act unless there is an imminent necessity to fill up the vacancies of Non-hereditary Trustee or Trustees and that too after recording such reasons in writing, show the implicit care to be invested while acting under its sanction. The vacancies are not to be filled under his whim or fancy but the Commissioner is clearly obligated to first conclude if it is necessary to do so, which can only mean to be a situation in which he thinks that the Hereditary Trustee will not be sufficient on his own to manage the affairs of the temple/institution. The competence and capability of the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees thus becomes absolutely relevant and germane when vacancies are sought to be filled up in the posts of Non-hereditary Trustees under Section 39(5) of the Act and, therefore, the issuance of a notice of such intention by the Commissioner to the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees, though not specifically mentioned in Section 39(5), will be apposite if not to be read into its provisions as a concomitant necessity to ensure fairness in procedure. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the Hereditary Trustee need not be consulted at all, while acting under Section 39(5), therefore, does not appear to be on terra firma forensically.” 8. Seeking review of the judgment in **Sreedharan** **Nambeesan P. [2018 (2) KLT 115]** , the Commissioner Malabar Devaswom Board and others filed R.P.No.227 of 2018 [ **neutral Citation No: 2018:KER:17236** ], contending that the words in paragraph 11 of the said judgment would give an impression that before acting under Section 39(5) of the Act, the 9 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 competent authority is obligated to obtain the concurrence of the hereditary trustee. 9. In the decision in **Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and others v. Sreedharan Nambeesan P.** **[2018:KER:17236]** the Division Bench clarified that in the judgment, what was intended was that the hereditary trustee be offered an opportunity to place his view regarding the necessity of filling up the vacancy in the office of the non-hereditary trustee. The judgment did not say that the concurrence of the hereditary trustee is necessary but only that he may be given the opportunity to state why he thinks that there is no necessity for the Commissioner to appoint a non-hereditary trustee. The Division Bench found this apposite since as per the provisions of Section 39(5) of the Act the Commissioner shall not fill up a vacancy of a non-hereditary trustee unless he considers it necessary to do so. It was in the backdrop of this particular provision that the Division Bench said that even though the issuance of a notice to the hereditary trustee is not mandated or specifically provided under Section 39(5) of the Act, it will be desirable, to ensure fairness in procedure, that the hereditary trustee is also afforded an opportunity to place his views appropriately before final orders are 10 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 passed under Section 39(5). The intention was not that the concurrence of the hereditary trustee to the proposal of the Commissioner be obtained but merely that he be given an opportunity to speak his opinion as to why he feels that there is no necessity to appoint a non-hereditary trustee in the temple. It is needless to say that since it was not the concurrence of the hereditary trustee that is required to be obtained, as per the judgment, the only obligation of the Commissioner is to afford the hereditary trustee an opportunity to say why he feels that no necessity exists for an order under Section 39(5) of the Act, so that any vital information, which is within the domain of the hereditary trustee can also be placed for his consideration. The Division Bench further clarified that the views of the hereditary trustee are not binding on the Commissioner, as per the provisions under Section 39(5) of the Act, but merely that such views can also be elicited to aid the Commissioner while he takes a decision as to whether it is necessary to fill up the vacancy. With the above clarification, the Division Bench closed the review petition. 10. In **Gopinatha Menon (Kenathachan) v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2012:KER:16515]** a Division Bench of this Court held that recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the 11 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 Act, is not necessary to make an appointment of a non-hereditary trustee on any ground referable to the conduct of the hereditary trustee, or otherwise, when there is a scheme governing the trust, - which provides, among other things, for appointment of four non hereditary trustees. ## 11. 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 decision of the Division Bench in **Parameshwaran Namboothiri P.M. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2011 (2) KHC 719]** and **Sreedharan Nambissan P. v. Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2018 (2) KLT 115]** are in the context of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the circumstances stated in the sub-section (2), which - has no application when the appointment of non hereditary trustees in a temple is governed by the provisions under the scheme framed under Section 58 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act relates to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in temples, where there is no scheme framed in terms of Section 58 of the Act. Once such a scheme is framed, the Malabar 12 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 Devaswom Board has to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance with that scheme. 12. In **Gopinatha Menon [2012:KER:16515]** the Division Bench noticed that the complaint of the petitioner, who is the Managing Trustee of the temple in question was that, the persons who are appointed as non-hereditary trustees are disqualified, as they are active politicians or those clouded by allegations referable to financial misconduct. The Division Bench observed that, even if the persons who have been selected and appointed as non-hereditary trustees have any such disqualifications, it may be open to the petitioner to move the Commissioner by pointing out such disqualifications. The Commissioner will then have to hear the petitioner and the persons against whom such allegations are made and conclude whether any such disqualification exists, warranting the removal of those persons. Therefore, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition _in limine_ , leaving that issue open. 13. In **V. Sudharsanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2012:KER:24089]** , the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which one of the contention raised by the petitioners was that, the persons elected are disqualified from 13 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 being appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple in question, on account of their alleged political allegiance and the fact that they are active political workers. The Division Bench noticed that the said question is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided, if any such objection is raised. Such - decision making process has to be undertaken by the appointing authority. Therefore, if any one among the petitioners has any objection or complaint in that regard, he may place it before the Malabar Devaswom Board, within a period of one month. If any such objection or complaint is received, the competent authority will issue notice to the non-hereditary trustees concerned and give him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on that issue, in accordance with law. > 14. In **Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (2) KLT 885]** , a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look forward to give political asylum to their workers. The Division Bench noticed that ours being a highly politically sensitive State, hardly any person can be traced, who is completely apolitical or who may not have his own independent political views. There may be persons having permanent political ideologies or 14 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 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 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. ## 15. In **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** , this Court held 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 15 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 prepared to actively work for the betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. Therefore, it is for the Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure that any appointment made as non-hereditary trustee of the temples under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board is strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in similar notifications. If found necessary, the format of the application for appointment as a non-hereditary trustee in the temple under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board has to be modified in an appropriate manner, by requiring the applicant to furnish particulars in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses in similar notifications. The Commissioner was directed to take 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. 16. In judgment dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.29279 of 16 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 2023 this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by this Court in **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** , for appointment as non-hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of the temple, who is prepared to actively work for the betterment of the temple. He should be a permanent resident of the Taluk in which the temple situates, who believe in idolatry. Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire 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 (Ext.P1). 17. 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 Ext.R6(a) notification [clause 3(7) in Ext.P1 17 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 notification dated 08.02.2023] issued by the Commissioner for appointment as non-hereditary trustees in the temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, is considered in the light of the interpretation given by this Court in **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** , no person actively - involved in politics is eligible to be appointed as a non hereditary trustee in a temple. 18. 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 Ext.R6(a) 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 18 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 public employment. Whichever be the political party, one who is actively involved in the activities of that political party alone is ordinarily selected/elected as an office bearer. Having been selected as office bearers of the political party/DYFI before or soon after the appointment as non-hereditary trustees, respondents 6 to 8 cannot contend that they were not active politicians. In constitution of DYFI [Ext.R6(e)], 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. 19. In **Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]** the Division Bench noticed that, going by the parameters prescribed in notification [Ext.R6(a)], 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 Ext.R6(a) 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. 19 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 They should also be persons used to be involved in the affairs of the temple. A person having reverence and adoration for a deity can alone be treated as a worshipper. A person facing criminal prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a 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 nonhereditary trustees in the temples under it. 20. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would point out that, if the petitioners are feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by the Area Committee and Ext.P7 order 20 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023 of the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Commissioner, they can invoke the statutory remedy available under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 by approaching the 1[st] respondent Devaswom Commissioner. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners shall invoke the statutory remedy by filing a revision petition before the 1[st] respondent Devaswom Commissioner. 22. 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 petitioners, with the following directions; (1) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the 2[nd] respondent shall furnish to the petitioners, a copy of the decision taken by the Area Committee, whereby respondents 6 to 8 are appointed as the Non-Hereditary Trustees in Thiruvalayanad Bhagavathy Temple and also a copy of the order No.A5/229/2023/MDB (D.Dis) dated 22.06.2023 issued by the said respondent. (2) Within two weeks thereafter, the petitioners shall file a revision petition before the 1[st] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable 21 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 Endowments Act, 1951, challenging the appointment of respondents 6 to 8 as Non-Hereditary Trustees, along with an application for interim stay. (3) The 1[st] respondent Commissioner shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for interim stay, with notice to the petitioners and respondents 6 to 8, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of that application. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent shall finally dispose of that revision petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of three 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. (4) The order passed by the 1[st] respondent shall be a ‘reasoned order’. (5) The appointment of respondents 6 to 8 as nonhereditary trustees shall be subject to the outcome of that revision petition. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** Yd 22 W.P.(C) No.22208 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22208/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` ExhibitP1THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2023 ``` ``` ExhibitP2THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.3.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4THRESPONDENT INVITING APPLIED CANDIDATES FOR INTER- VIEW ``` ``` ExhibitP3THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RE- SPONDENT DATED 03.07.2023 ``` ``` ExhibitP4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RE- SPONDENT DATED 3.6.2023 ``` ``` ExhibitP5THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO PROVE THE AFFILIATION OF RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 ``` ``` ExhibitP6THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 20.06.2023 ExhibitP7THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 22.06.2023 ```