Prabhakaran Nair and Manoj v. 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` **==> picture [167 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1PRABHAKARAN NAIR , AGED 83 YEARS S/O. DEVAKIAMMA, PLAVAZHI HOUSE, AZHIYANNUR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678633 ``` ``` 2MANOJ, AGED 53 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, PLAVAZHI HOUSE, KADAMBUR PO, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679515 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` K.MOHANAKANNAN ``` ``` H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, PIN - 673003`** - **`2 THE COMMISSIONER,`** ``` MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-, PIN - 673003 ``` - **`3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-, PIN - 673003`** ``` 4THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 678001 ``` ``` 2 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 - **`5 THE AREA COMMITTEE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD, - REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 678001`** ``` 6THE INSPECTOR MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE AT THE CHERPLASSERI, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD -, PIN - 679503 ``` ``` 7EXECUTIVE OFFICER THALAYANNAKKADU SIVA TEMPLE, AZHIYANNUR, KADAMBAZHIPURAM PO, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 678633 ``` ``` SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN - STANDING COUNSEL- MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 12.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are members of ‘Plavazhi Tharawad’, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice dated 01.09.2023 issued by the 6[th] respondent Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board, to one Manikandan, who made an application for appointment as non-hereditary trustee of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, for verification of documents on 11.09.2023. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus, commanding the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Commissioner, Kozhikode to decide the claim of the 1[st] petitioner as hereditary trustee of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, within a timeframe to be fixed by this Court and till such time, defer the appointment of a non-hereditary trustees, based on Ext.P3. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent to consider Ext.P1 as per the provision of Section 47(3) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 and to communicate the order to the petitioners, within a timeframe to be fixed by this Court and to defer the appointment of non-hereditary trustees pursuant to Ext.P3; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 5[th] respondent not to appoint non-hereditary trustee and without ``` 4 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 deciding the issue regarding the hereditary trusteeship. 2. 1[st] petitioner is the seniormost member of Plavazhi Tharavadu, which is having hereditary trusteeship of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple. The 2[nd] petitioner is a member of the family and entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee. When a notification was published for appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the temple, Ext.P1 representation was filed before respondents 1 to 4 by the petitioners and two other members of the Tharavadu stating that the 1[st] petitioner is the seniormost member and entitled to be approved as hereditary trustee. The grievance of the petitioners is that, instead of deciding that issue, an interview notice was issued by the 6[th] respondent Inspector for considering both nonhereditary trusteeship and hereditary trusteeship on the same day, as evident from Exts.P2 and P3. This was objected to by the petitioners by submitting Exts.P4 and P5 representations by the petitioners. In the writ petition, it is alleged that without notice to the hereditary trustee, the Board and its officials are attending to appoint active politicians as non-hereditary trustees of the temple. 3. On 29.09.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 6, urgent ``` 5 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 7[th] respondent, returnable within three weeks. This Court passed an interim order dated 29.09.2023. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that order read thus; “3. Plavazhi Balan Nair, who was the hereditary trustee of Sree Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, Ottappalam, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, died on 06.07.2020. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the next senior most member of the 'Plavazhi tharavadu' is yet to be approved as the hereditary trustee by the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Commissioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board seeks time to get instructions on the procedure that is being followed for filling up the vacancy of hereditary trustees in the temples which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. 5. Regarding the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in Sree Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, Palakkad, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that after verification of records by the 6[th] respondent-Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board, the applications will have to be placed before the 5[th] respondent Area Committee for its decision. 6. The learned Standing Counsel seeks time to get instructions on the present stage of the process of appointment. 7. The appointment of non-hereditary trustees in Sree Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, Palakkad shall be deferred for a period of four weeks.” 4. On 26.10.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for ``` 6 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 Malabar Devaswom Board, on instructions from the 4[th] respondent 1[st] petitioner, who claims to be the senior member of ‘Plavazhi Tharavadu’ did not raise any claim for hereditary trusteeship, after the demise of Late Plavazhi Balan Nair. By the order dated 26.10.2023, the interim order granted on 29.09.2023 was extended for a period of one month. 5. Along with I.A No.1 of 2023, the petitioners have placed on record Exts.P6 to P11 additional documents. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of that application read thus; “2) The Writ Petition(C) is filed challenging the attempt of the Malabar Devaswom Board in appointing Non Hereditary Trustee, without declaring the present status Hereditary Trustee of the temple. The Malabar Devaswom Board has pointed out before this Hon'ble Court on 26.10.2023 that for the last 20 years the 1[st] petitioner who claims to be a senior member of the Plavazhi tharawad did not raise any claim for any hereditary trusteeship. It is submitted that the petitioners’ predecessor, late Balan Nair, was the Hereditary Trustee, who died only on 06.07.2020. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in contending that for the last 20 years there was no move by the petitioner. The death Certificate dated 05.12.2023 of the Plavazhi Balan Nair issued by the Department of Urban Affairs is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P6. 3) After the filing of the Writ Petition(C) a communication was received from the Assistant Commissioner by the Petitioners ``` 7 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 on 10.10.2023 informing that the petitioners have to produce documents and to approach the Deputy Commissioner, for appropriate reliefs of declaration. True copy of the communication dated 10.10.2023 of the Assistant Commissioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P7. 4) Yet another contention was raised to the effect that no application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner for declaring the Hereditary Trustee. Referring to all earlier proceedings the 1st Petitioner has filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner with all relevant documents available on 21.10.2023. True copy of representation dated 21.10.2023 submitted by the 1st Petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board with postal acknowledgement is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P8. 5) The petitioner has approached the Tahsildar also for necessary Certificate on 17.10.2023, an application for getting certificate of declaration that I am the seniormost member of the family. True copy of the representation submitted by the 1[st] petitioner before the Tahsildar, Taluk office, Ottapalam dated 17.10.2023 with receipt dated 18.10.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P9. The 1[st] petitioner has approached the Village Officer, Sreekrishnapuram by filing a representation requesting for an ownership certificate of the property, true copy of representation dated 14.09.2023 submitted by the 1[st] petitioner before the Village Officer, Sreekrishnapuam is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P10. In answer to the same, the Tahsildar has called for a report from the Village officer on 04.11.2023. True copy of the communication sent by the Tahsildar to the Village officer dated 04.11.2023 is ``` 8 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.11. 6) In the light of the same there is absolutely no justification in contending that for the last 20 years there was no claim raised. A right of hereditary trusteeship is inherited by way of succession. It cannot be said to be lost by efflux of time. Moreover, the right of hereditary trustee is vested with the family and the senior most members of the family will be the Hereditary Trustee from time to time.” 6. By the order dated 06.12.2023, the interim order granted in this writ petition was extended for a period of three weeks. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for 7[th] respondent Executive Officer. 8. During the course of arguments, in addition to the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P3 notice, the learned counsel for the petitioners would seek time bound consideration of Ext.P8 request dated 21.10.2023 made by the 1[st] petitioner before the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Commissioner to recognise him as the hereditary trustee of Thalayannakkad Devaswom. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board would submit that, if Ext.P8 request made by the 1[st] ``` 9 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 3[rd] respondent Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties. 10. In **Sreedharan Nambeesan 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 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 ``` 10 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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.” 11. 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 competent authority is obligated to obtain the concurrence of the hereditary trustee. 12. 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 ``` 11 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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 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 ``` 12 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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. 13. 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 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. 14. In **Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388]** a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us ``` 13 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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 Devaswom Board has to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance with that scheme. 15. 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- ``` 14 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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. 16. 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 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 ``` 15 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on that issue, in accordance with law. > 17. In **Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (2) KLT 885]** , a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties should look forward to give political asylum to their workers. The Division Bench noticed that ours being a highly politically sensitive State, hardly any person can be traced, who is completely apolitical or who may not have his own independent political views. There may be persons having permanent political ideologies or views whereas there may be equal number of persons who hold views according to the issues involved. Perhaps 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 ``` 16 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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. 18. 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 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 ``` 17 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 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. 19. In Ext.P4 judgment dated 08.09.2023 in W.P.(C)No.29279 of 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 nonhereditary trustees of TTK Devaswom. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent Commissioner has to ensure that any appointments made as non-hereditary trustee in TTK Devaswom, which is a ``` 18 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, are strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in Ext.P1 notification dated 10.07.2023. 20. 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(g) in Ext.P1 notification dated 10.07.2023] issued by the Commission 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. 21. 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 ``` 19 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 political party are ineligible. The terms are used disjunctively. So persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they hold any post in a political party, are ineligible. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that respondents 6 to 8 therein have no case that they have any other profession. It is a matter of common knowledge that the functioning of a political party and selection/election of its office bearers is not similar to public employment. Whichever be the political party, one who is actively involved in the activities of that political party alone is ordinarily selected/elected as an office bearer. Having been selected as office bearers of the political party/DYFI before or soon after the appointment as non-hereditary trustees, respondents 6 to 8 cannot contend that they were not active politicians. In Ext.R6(e) 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 Ext.R6(e) 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. ## 22. In **Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]** the Division Bench noticed that, going by the parameters prescribed in ``` 20 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 Ext.R6(a) 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 Ext.R6(a) that persons who apply to be appointed as nonhereditary trustees shall be idol worshippers and persons having an interest in the advancement of the temple. They should also be persons used to be involved in the affairs of the temple. A person having reverence and adoration for a deity can alone be treated as a worshipper. A person facing criminal prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a 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 ``` 21 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 with any new appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the temples under it. 23. Regarding the appointment of non-hereditary trustees, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that further proceedings in terms of Ext.P3 will be conducted strictly in terms of the law laid down by this Court in **Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388]** and **Anantha Narayanan and another v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2023 KLT OnLine 1195 : 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1022]** . In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the 3[rd] respondent Deputy Commissioner to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P8 request made by the 1[st] petitioner to recognise him as the hereditary trustee of Thalayannakkad Siva Temple, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The 5[th] respondent Area Committee shall proceed with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the said temple, strictly in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in **Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388]** and ``` 22 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 **Anantha Narayanan and another v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2023 KLT OnLine 1195 : 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1022]** . **Sd/-** **Sd/G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd ``` 23 ``` W.P(C) No.31960 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31960/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6-3-2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 4 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 119/2023 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 1-9-2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT 3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.338/2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT INSPECTOR TO ONE MANIKANDAN DATED 1-9-2023 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS AND ONE P.KESAVAN NAIR DATED 7-9-2023 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-9-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE INSPECTOR ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 5/12/23 OF THE PLAVAZHI BALAN NAIR ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION A5/579/2023/MDB, DATED 10-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21-10- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD WITH POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM DATED 17-10-2023 WITH RECEIPT DATED 18-10-2023 EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14-9- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SREEKRISHNAPUAM EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 4-11-2023 ```