W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 7TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.8226 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 MURALEEDHARAN M., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAN NAIR V, VISHNUNANDANAM, THEKKUMURI P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.`** - **`2 VELAYUDHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O MUNDAN, MEDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O. PP ANGADI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM-676 101.`** ## **`BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 006.`** - **`2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 006.`** - **`3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 504.`** - **`4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE VAIRAMKODE DEVASWOM, VAIRAMCODE P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 001.`** - **`5 RATHEESHKUMAR A, S/O VELAYUDHAN, ANDITHARA HOUSE, VAIRAMCODE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 001.`** - **`6 DILEEP K, S/O VELAYUDHAN, KADAVTH HOUSE, CHANDANAKAVU,`** 2 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 ``` KURUMBATHOOR P.O., THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 301. ``` ``` 7RAMEESH K, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O SANKARAN NAIR, AIYITAT HOUSE P.O, VENGALOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 102. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN, SR.GOVT. PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioners, who are the devotees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya, in Malappuram District, 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 mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner to appoint non-hereditary trustees strictly adhering to the disqualifications prescribed in Clauses 3(a) to 3(j) of Ext.P1; a writ of mandamus appointing an Observer from this Court to complete the selection process pursuant to Ext.P1 and to file a report in that regard within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to appoint nonhereditary trustees, who are having disqualifications as per Ext.P1 notification and to make the selection pursuant to Ext.P1 by assessing the merit of the candidates and purely on the basis of the same; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent not to appoint respondents 5 to 7 as non-hereditary trustees in the light of Exts.P4 to P6; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] 4 ## W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 respondent to conduct the interview pursuant to Ext.P1 and to produce the results of the same before this Court and appoint qualified persons as non-hereditary trustees within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya in Malappuram District is a public religious institution coming under the Malabar Devaswom Board and being administered by the Board of Trustees constituted by the 2[nd] respondent. It is one of the special-grade temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board. By Ext.P1, applications were invited for appointment to the post of non-hereditary trustees in the temple. The petitioners are the applicants as evident from Exts.P2 and P3. In the writ petition, it is alleged that respondents 5 to 7, who are active politicians and office bearers as evident from Exts.P7 to P9, are declared and decided to be appointed, even before conducting the interview. The list of those persons has already been submitted by the ruling party and the interview will be a mockery. There are altogether 23 applicants to the post. Four persons have to be selected from among the 23. There are fully qualified persons as per 5 ## W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 Ext.P1 notification, who do not have any disqualification enumerated in Clauses 3 (a) to (j), available for appointment. According to the petitioners, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in **Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 574]** is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Respondents 1 to 3 are deviating from the prescribed standards and the administration of the temple will be in disarray if politicians are appointed. Respondents 5 to 7 are not devotees and not interested in the affairs of the temple. To avoid such illegal appointments this writ petition is filed. 3. On 18.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 7, returnable by 24.08.2023. In I.A.No.1 of 2023, this Court passed an interim order, which reads thus: “The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, on instructions, would submit that in connection with Ext.P1 notification dated 19.01.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, the Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board, Manjeri Division has 6 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 scheduled the process of certificate verification on 19.08.2023 at 9.00 a.m. Having considered the materials on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, it is ordered that the appointment of nonhereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Devaswom, Thirunavaya shall be deferred for a period of four weeks. However, the certificate verification and other processes in terms of that notification can be proceeded with.” 4. The said interim order, which was extended on 24.08.2023 and thereafter on 15.09.2023, is still in force. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 producing therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b). The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 08.08.2023 to the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2. The 4[th] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 22.08.2023. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent Executive Officer. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 5 to 7. 7 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 7. Clause 3 of Ext.P1 notification dated 190.01.2023 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner deals with disqualifications and Clause 4 deals with eligibility of a person for being appointed as nonhereditary trustee of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Devaswom. Clauses 3 and 4 of Ext.P1 notification read thus; “3. താഴെ പ്രസ്താവിച്ച അയ ാഗ്യതകളിൽ ഏഴതങ്കിലുഴ ായനാ, എലലായ ാ ഉള്ള ആളുകൾകക നി നത്തിന് അർഹത ുണ്ടാ ിരിക്കുനതലല. അതിനാൽ അവർ അയരക്ഷിയക്കണ്ടതിലല. a) സദാചാരദൂഷ്യ ുൾഴെടാത്ത വലല കുറ്റത്തിനുും നാടുകടത്തിൽ ശിക്ഷയ്കയക്കാ, ആറു ാസത്തിലധിക ാ ഒരു കാലയത്തക്കുള്ള തടവുശിക്ഷയ്കയക്കാ ഒരു പ്കി ിനൽ യകാടതി ശിക്ഷിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള ആളുകൾ അങ്ങഴന ുള്ള ശിക്ഷ ദുർബലഴെടുത്താതിരിക്കുകയ ാ അഴലലങ്കിൽ ആറു ാസയ ാ അതിൽ കുറയവാ ആ ഒരു കാലയത്തക്കു ചുരുക്കാതിരിക്കുകയ ാ അഴലലങ്കിൽ ഗ്വൺഴ ന അങ്ങഴന ുള്ള കുറ്റും ാൊക്കാതിരിക്കുകയ ാ വീണ്ടുും അഴലലങ്കിൽ ആ ശിക്ഷ ഒരു അയ ാഗ്യത ാ ിത്തീരുനതഴലലനു ഗ്വഴെന കൽെിക്കാതിരിക്കുകയ ാ ഴചയ്യുയപാൾ. b) ദീവാളി ാ ി വിധി കല്രിക്കഴെടുകയ ാ അഴലലങ്കിൽ അങ്ങിഴന വിധി കൽെിച്ചു കിട്ടുനതിന് അയരക്ഷിക്കുകയ ാ ഴചയ്കതിരിക്കുന ആളുകൾ. c) ുപുതഴന വലല കട്ടലാ ികളുയടയ ാ യക്ഷപ്തത്തിയനാടു യചർതത പ്രയതയക ദാനസവത്തുക്കളുഴടയ ാ പ്ടസ്റ്റികളാ ിട്ടുള്ള ആളുകൾ. d) ുപുതഴന വലല യക്ഷപ്തത്തിന്ഴറ ുും പ്ടസ്റ്റികളാ ിരിക്കുക ുും ആകട പ്രകാരും ഏർഴെടുത്തഴെട്ട കാരയനിർവ്വാഹക 8 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 യബാർഡിനായലാ, അധികാരസ്ഥന്മായരായലാ നീക്കും ഴചയ്യുകയ ാ, രിരിച്ച ക്കുകയ ാ ഴചയ്യഴെടുക ുും ഴചയ്കത ആളുകൾ. e) ഒരു പ്ടസ്റ്റി ുഴട പ്രവൃത്തികൾ നിർവ്വഹിക്കുനതിന് തങ്ങഴള അയ ാഗ്യരാക്കിത്തീർക്കുന ചിത്തപ്ര യ ാ, ാനസികയ ാ, കാ ികയ ാ ആ റ്റു ദൂഷ്യയ ാ, യശഷ്ിയകയടാ ഉള്ള ആളുകൾ. f) ഴതാെിൽരര ാ ി തിരകുരിടിചവർ. g) സജീവ രാപരീ പരവർതകർ, രാപരീ രാർടികളുഴട ഒയദയാഗിക രദവികൾ വഹികുനവർ. h) യദവസവും സ്ഥലും/രൂ ി/ ഴകട്ടിടും കയയ്യറി വർ. i) യദവസവത്തിന് താൽരരയ ുള്ള വയവഹാരത്തിൽ പ്രതി എതിർ കക്ഷി ാ ിട്ടുള്ളവർ. j) യദവസവത്തിഴനതിരാ ി വയവഹാരും ഫ ൽ ഴചയ്കതിട്ടുള്ളവർ.” “4. (a) അയരക്ഷകൾ യകപതു സിതിഴചയുന താലൂകിഴല സിരതാ സകാരനാ ിരികണു, യവാട്ടർ രട്ടിക ിഴല യരയരാ, യറഷ്ൻകാർഡിഴല വിലാസയ ാ ഇതിന് ഴതളിവാ ി അയരക്ഷയ ാഴടാെും ഹാജരായക്കണ്ടതാണ്. (b) അയരകകൾ സാധാരണ ാ ി /രതിവാ ി യകപതു സനർശികുന സവരാവ ുള ആളാ ിരികണു. (c) അയരക്ഷകർ വിപ്ഗ്ഹാരാധന ിൽ വിശവസിക്കുന ആളാ ിരിക്കണും. യക്ഷപ്തും/യകപതങളുഴട രുയരാഗതികുയവണി സജീവ ാ ി പരവർതികുനവരാ ിരികണും. (d) വിദയാരയാസ യ ാഗ്യത ഴതളി ിക്കുനതിനുള്ള യരഖകൾ അയരക്ഷയ ാഴടാെും ഹാജരാക്കി ിരിക്കണും.” (underline supplied) 8. Clause 4 of Ext.P1 notification, which deals with eligibility of a person for being appointed as non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Devaswom, makes it explicitly clear that 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. In view of the provisions in Clause 9 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 3 of Ext.P1 notification, active politicians or those holding official positions of political parties or those who are busy with their employment are disqualified from being appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple. Sub-clauses (a) to (e) and (i) and (j) of Clause 3 of Ext.P1 notification deals with other disqualifications of a person for being appointed as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. 9. 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 10 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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 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.” 10. 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 11 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 11. 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 12 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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 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 13 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 necessary to fill up the vacancy. With the above clarification, the Division Bench closed the review petition. 12. 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. ## 13. 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 14 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 14. 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 nonhereditary 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 15 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 15. 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 him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on 16 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 that issue, in accordance with law. 16. 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 17 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 17. 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 18 ## W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 18. In 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 nonhereditary 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 19 ## W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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 1[st] respondent 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 Ext.P1 notification dated 10.07.2023. 19. 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 30.08.2022] issued by the Commissioner for appointment as nonhereditary 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 20 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 appointed as a non-hereditary trustee in a temple. 20. 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 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 21 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 21. 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. 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 22 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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. 22. 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 Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the applicant should be a regular worshipper of the temple, who is 23 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 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 Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya. In view of the law laid down by this Court in **Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]** 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. Persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they hold any post in a political party, are ineligible for appointment as non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya. 23. During the course of arguments, the specific stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board is that the appointment of non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya shall be made strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in Ext.P1 24 ## W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 notification dated 19.01.2022 and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing 2[nd] respondent Commissioner and the concerned Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board to proceed with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi Temple, Thirunavaya, strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses provided in Ext.P1 notification dated 19.01.2022 and also the law laid down in **Chathu Achan K. [2022 (6) KLT 388]** and **Anantha Narayanan [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]** . Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** DSV 25 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8226/2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS :`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO J7/2319/2019/MDB DATED 19.1.2022. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED NIL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 7.2.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.22 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.22 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE FACEBOOK POST OF SRI. RATHEESHKUMAR @ UNNI. Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE FACEBOOK POST OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DILEEP. Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT RAMESH K. EXHIBIT P7 IN TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE REPLY AFFIDAVITINSPECTOR, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 2/8/2023 BEARING NO. 287/2023. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1(A) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.4.2004 IN OP NO.6131/2003. ANNEXURE R1(B) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 18.05.2004 FRAMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` 26 W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2022 ``` EXHIBIT R4(A)TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION DATED 12-05-1982 IN O.A. NO.11/1981 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN) OF THE ERSTWHILE HRCE DEPARTMENT ```