Kerala High Court
Krishnan Namboodiri vs The Commissioner on 20 June, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:44659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI,
AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O POTHAYAN NAMBOODIRI, KOLATHAPPALLY MANA
KALLUR POST CHAVAKKAD THRISSUR -, PIN - 679562.
2 DURGADAS S NAMBOODIRIPPAD,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD, KADALAYIL MANA
147 NEHRU NAGAR KURIACHIRA THRISSUR, PIN - 680006.
3 SATHIAN NAMBOODIRI,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O PM SANKARAN PAYYOOR MANA KOPPAM, PULASSERI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679307.
4 SIVADAS NAMBOODIRI,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD
PUTHUVA MANA KANJIRAMATTOM P.O
KULAYETTIKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SHRI.ASIF N
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX
ERANHIPPALAM P.O KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006.
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:44659
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REP BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSEFED COMPLEX ERANHIPPALAM P.O
KOZHIKODE-, PIN - 673006.
3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, CIVIL
STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101.
4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SREE THRIKKANAMUKKU MAHADEVA TEMPLE VAILATHOOR
NJAMANAYANGAD P.O CHAVAKKAD TALUK
THRISSUR, PIN - 679563.
5 PRADEEP P NAIR,
PUDUKULANGARA VEETTIL NJAMANAYANGAD POST
VADAKKEKKAD VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD TALUK
THRISSUR, PIN - 679563.
*6 ADDL. R6.
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE(DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
*7 ADDL. R7.
SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
AUDIT, PALAKKAD
*[ADDL. R6 & R7 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 25.03.2025 IN WPC 11370/2025]
**8 ADDL.R8.
TEMPLE RENOVATION COMMITTEE
REP BY IT'S GENERAL SECRETARY, SREE THRIKKANAMUKKU
MAHADEVA TEMPLE VAILATHOOR, NJAMANAYANGAD P.O
CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR-679563.
** [ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.05.2025
IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN W.P.(C)NO.11370 OF 2025]
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:44659
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:44659
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are stated to be the hereditary trustees
of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, Vylathoor, in
Chavakkad Taluk, jointly owned by four families, viz.,
Kolathappally Mana, Kadalayi Mana, Payyoor Mana and Puthuvaay
Mana, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 1 to 4 to handover the management and
administration of the said temple to the petitioners, who are the
hereditary trustees. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate
action for the recovery of the entire amount collected by the 5 th
respondent Kshethra Punarudharana Committee (Temple
Renovation Committee) from general public and the devotees
under the guise of renovation of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva
Temple and to direct the 5th respondent Committee to produce the
details of the fund collected in the name of Punarudharanam
(renovation) of the temple and Sivarathri Maholsavam; a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to renovate Sree
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:44659
Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple under the leadership of the
petitioners, who are the hereditary trustees.
2. On 25.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for
admission, State of Kerala represented by the Special Secretary
to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department and the Senior
Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Malabar
Devaswom Board Audit were suo motu impleaded as additional
respondents 6 and 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar
Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to
3 and the Senior Government Pleader for additional respondents
6 and 7. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was
ordered to respondents 4 and 5, returnable by 01.04.2025. The
learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board was
directed to get specific instructions with reference to Exts.P4 and
P8 notices alleged to have been published by the 5th respondent
Punarudharana Committee for collecting money from devotees of
Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, in which the name of the
said Committee is mentioned.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.05.2025 of the 1 st
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:44659
respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. Paragraphs
3 to 15 of that counter affidavit read thus:
“3. It is submitted that, Sree Trikanamuku Mahadeva
Temple is a religious institution within the purview of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and
hence the provisions of the said Act, the Rules framed there
under and the scheme of administration in O.A.No.11 of
1956 dated 17.05.1956 governs the temple administration.
The immediate supervisory control of the temple is vested
with the Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board, of
Malappuram Division as provided in the Act.
4. It is submitted that the right of administration of the
temple had been vested with the family of Hereditary
Trustees. There were 3 hereditary trustees, the Senior most
persons from the families namely Kolathappullymana of
Kaloor, Kaladalayi Mana of Vylathur and Payyoor mana of
Koonammooly. There is no provision in the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, to prohibit the Trustees
from functioning in the temple, for due discharge of the
duties connected with the administration.
5. In fact, the hereditary trustees had not been habitually
involved in the temple administration, for about decades
now, and an Executive Officer and two non-hereditary
trustees were appointed, when the temple was under the
supervisory control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment (Admn) Department.
6. While so, the 1st petitioner had intermittently attended in
the Trustee Board meetings during 2014-15. When two non-
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:44659
hereditary trustees were appointed as per order in
A4.3814/2014 dated 19.06.2019, the devotees, had raised
grave allegations that the two persons namely Madhavan
Kutty. T.M. and Vasu. A.M were being appointed
continuously and the Chairman namely T.M Madhavan Kutty,
the chairman then, along with his accomplice, namely Vasu
AM, had been misusing the temple and misappropriating the
temple funds, and the amount procured by excavating soil
even from the holy temple pond were misappropriated
without accounting the income thereon, coming to about
Ten lakhs Rupees. While so, the Hereditary Trustees had not
been participating in the temple administration. So even
after the expiry of the term, Sree T.M. Madhavankutty, had
been continuing at the helm of affairs illegally.
7. It is submitted that earlier, as per order No.A4.2790 2004
dated 07.11.2005, 4 non-hereditary trustees were
appointed, while so Kunju Namboodiri of Kolathoopully Mana
had been attending intermittently. It was made known that
3 Hereditary Trustees were existing and two non-hereditary
trustees namely T.M Madhavan kutty and M.A Vasu were
appointed as per Order No. 4.26/2009 dated 06.02.2010.
Further the Order No.A4.3814/2014 dated 19.06.2019,
appointing TM Madhavankutty and M.A Vasu was set aside
by the Order dated 01.02.2022 of the 1st respondent.
8. It is submitted that the Executive Officer was appointed
two decades back and non-hereditary trustees were
appointed continuously. The Hereditary Trustees were
reframing from discharging their duties on their own and as
they had abandoned the temple, their right came to be
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:44659extinct due to non-exercise of it. Whether the petitioners 2
and 3 were the senior most persons of the family of Kadalay
Mana and Payyoor Mana is not known to the Board, since
the death of the predecessor and succession of the
petitioners 2 and 3 were not reported to the authorities
under the Act.
9. So the appointment of the Executive Officer and the
appointment of non-Hereditary Trustees were continuous
and the Hereditary Trustees had not challenged those orders
since they were not interested in participating in the temple
administration. Now it seems that the Hereditary Trustees
had the convenience to participate in the temple
administration and without agitating the same before the
authorities under the Act, has filed the above Writ Petition
deliberately hiding the grave declension occurred on the part
of the Petitioners 1 to 3, in the due discharge of their duties
as Hereditary Trustees for decades.
10. As far as the cause of action mentioned in the Writ
Petition that the alleged collection of funds is concerned, the
renovation committee for construction of office and toilet
was approved as per order in A4.4944/2022 dated
11.01.2023 subject to the conditions in the circular
HR5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007. Sri. Nandakumar T.M. is
the President and 5th respondent is the Secretary of the
Committee.
11. It is submitted that Sree P. Aravindakshan was elected
as the President and the Committee was again approved
under Order vide A4.1891/2024/MDB/K Dis dated
25.05.2024, and the 5th respondent is the Secretary therein.
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:44659
The plan and estimate of the work was approved by Ext.P3.
12. The construction of Office Building and the Sreekovil of
Sub Deities, is in its initial stage and Rs.90,855/- (Rupees
Ninety thousand eight hundred and fifty five only) and
Rs.65,382/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand three hundred and
eighty two only) has been spent for the foundation work and
the same was reported to be from the personal funds of
Sri.T.M.Nandakumar, Sree. P.Aravindakshan, the President
and Sree Kochan, another member of the Committee, for
which no receipts were printed and no collection was made
from the public in any manner, and hence no bank account
was also opened in that regard. There is no evidence for
collection of funds from the public.
13. It is submitted that, Ext.P8 is merely a notice regarding
celebration of Sivarathri festival in which, the phone
numbers were merely shown for enquiry and there is no
allegation that the said numbers were connected with G.pay
or any amount were collected through any account either.
So Ext.P3 to P8 are irrelevant as far as the allegation of fund
collection are concerned. In Ext.P1, only the name of the
temple is mentioned. As far as Hereditary Trusteeship is
concerned, the entries in section 25 of the register is the
authenticated recordical evidence to prove it.
14. The Hereditary Trustees being vested with the right of
administration, they are bound to prepare and obtain
approval u/s 25(2) of the Act. So Ext P1 is irrelevant as far
as the right of claim of Hereditary Trusteeship, since the
same was obtained in recent years in 2023 and 2024.
Admittedly, 3 families namely Kolappully Mana, Kadalayi
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:44659Mana and Payyoor Mana, in order to make entries of the
names as the ooralan of the temple, it had to be on the
entitlement, as the next person in the line of succession
under Section 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act. The temple being within the purview of
the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the
entries of the name of the ooralan had to be the persons
who had lawfully succeeded in the temple administration as
Trustee u/s 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act.
15. If at all there was any such hereditary trusteeship claim
on valid evidences, in difference with the prevailing number
of the vested right of Hereditary families, the dispute should
be settled u/s 57(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act. So the family of Puthuvamanakkal the 2nd
entry in Ext P1(b) and (c), has to prove his claim before the
Deputy Commissioner u/s 57(b).”
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for
respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent
Executive Officer, the learned Senior Government Pleader for
additional respondents 6 and 7 and also the learned counsel for
the additional 8th respondent Temple Renovation Committee.
Despite service of notice, none appears for the 5th respondent.
5. The main relief sought for in this wit petition is a writ
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:44659
of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the
management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku
Mahadeva Temple to the petitioners, who are the hereditary
trustees of that temple.
6. The averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st
respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board would show
that Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple is a religious
institution within the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and the administration of the
temple is governed by the Scheme formulated by the order dated
17.05.1956 in O.A.No.11 of 1956. The immediate supervisory
control of the temple is vested with the Area Committee of Malabar
Devaswom Board, Malappuram Division.
7. Though the case of the petitioners is that Sree
Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple is jointly by four families,
namely, Kolathappally Mana, Kadalayi Mana, Payyoor Mana and
Puthuvaay Mana, and the petitioners are the hereditary trustees
of the temple, the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the
1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board is that
the right of administration of the temple is vested with three
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:44659
families, namely, Kolathappally Mana of Kaloor, Kadalayi Mana of
Vylathur and Payyoor Mana of Koonamooly. In fact, the hereditary
trustees had not been habitually involved in the temple
administration for about a decade, and the Executive Officer and
two non-hereditary trustees were appointed when the temple was
under the supervisory control of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department. While so,
the 1st petitioner had intermittently attended the meeting of the
Trustee Board during 2014-15. When two non-hereditary trustees
were appointed as per the order dated 19.06.2019, the devotees
raised grave allegations against them, as stated in paragraph 6 of
the counter affidavit. At that time, the hereditary trustees were
not participating in the temple administration. The Executive
Officer was appointed in the temple two decades back and the
non-hereditary trustees are also being appointed continuously.
Whether petitioners 2 and 3 are the seniormost persons in the
family of Kadalayi Mana and Payyoor Mana are not known to the
Malabar Devaswom Board, since the death of their predecessor
and succession were not reported to the authorities under the Act.
8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:44659
record and also the submissions made at the Bar on the above
aspect, we notice that the claim of the petitioners that the
management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku
Mahadeva Temple has to be handed over to them, since they are
the hereditary trustees of the temple has to be decided by the
competent authority in the 2nd respondent Malabar Devaswom
Board, since the claim of petitioners 2 to 4 that they are hereditary
trustees of the temple is disputed in the counter affidavit filed by
the 1st respondent Commissioner. In the said counter affidavit,
there is no dispute regarding the entitlement of the 1 st petitioner.
However, in the case of petitioners 2 and 3 their entitlement is
disputed by contending that the death of their predecessors and
succession of petitioners 2 and 3 as the seniormost member of the
respective families were not reported to the authorities under the
Act.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners shall submit a proper request before the 2 nd
respondent Malabar Devaswom Board to hand over the
management and administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku
Mahadeva Temple, producing therewith documents to substantiate
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:44659
the fact that petitioners 2 and 3 are the seniormost person of
Kadalayi Mana and Payyoor Mana and that the 5th petitioner is the
seniormost member of Puthuvaayi Mana, who is also entitled to
be one among the hereditary trustees of the said temple.
10. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st
respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board is that the
administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple for the
last two decades is by a Trustee Board consisting of non-hereditary
trustees and also an Executive Officer, since the hereditary
trustees of the temple were not involved in the administration of
the temple and they had abandoned the temple. Therefore, it was
found necessary to constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of
non-hereditary trustees for the administration of the temple.
11. During the course of arguments the learned counsel
for the petitioners would point out the law laid down by this Court
in P.V. Sankaran and others v. Malabar Devaswom Board
and others [2025 KHC OnLine 89].
12. Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, deals with Trustees and their
number and term of office. As per sub-section (1) of Section 39,
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:44659
where a religious institution included in the list published under
Section 38 or over which no Area Committee has jurisdiction, has
no hereditary trustee, the Commissioner shall constitute a Board
of Trustees consisting of not less than three and not more than
five persons appointed by him. As per sub-section (2) of Section
39, where, in the case of any such institution having a hereditary
trustee or trustees; the Commissioner after notice to such trustee
or trustees, and after such enquiry as he deems adequate,
considers for reasons to be recorded, that the affairs of the
institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by
the hereditary trustee or trustees, the Commissioner may, by
order appoint such number of non-hereditary trustees as he thinks
necessary, so however that the total number of trustees does not
exceed five. As per sub-section (3) of Section 39, every trustee
appointed under sub-section (1) and subject to the result of an
application, if any, filed under sub-section (4) every non-
hereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) shall hold
office for a term of two years, unless in the meanwhile the trustee
is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by the
Commissioner or he otherwise ceases to be a trustee.
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:44659
13. As per sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Act, where
the Commissioner by order appoints a non-hereditary trustee or
trustees the hereditary trustee or trustees may, within thirty days
of the receipt of the order, file an application to the court to set
aside or modify such order. As per sub-section (5) of Section 39,
where a vacancy arises in the office of a non-hereditary trustee
appointed under sub-section (2) the Commissioner shall not fill up
such a vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it
necessary to do so. A non-hereditary trustee appointed in the
vacancy shall be deemed to have been appointed under sub-
section (2), and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall
apply accordingly.
14. Section 40 of the Act deals with the Chairman. As per
sub-section (1) of Section 40, in the case of a religious institution
for which a Board of Trustees is constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 39, the Board shall elect one of its members to be its
Chairman. As per sub-section (2) of Section 40, in the case of any
other religious institution having more than one trustee, the
trustees of such institution shall elect one of their members to be
the Chairman. As per sub-section (3) of Section 40, a Chairman
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:44659
elected under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall hold office
for such period as may be prescribed.
15. Section 41 of the Act deals with the power of the Area
Committee to appoint Trustees. As per sub-section (1) of Section
41, in the case of any religious institution over which an Area
Committee has jurisdiction, the Area Committee shall have the
same power to appoint trustees as is vested in the Commissioner
in the case of a religious institution referred to in Section 39. As
per the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 41, the Area
Committee may, in the case of any institution which has no
hereditary trustee, appoint a single trustee. As per sub-section (2)
of Section 41, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 39 and
Section 40 shall apply to the trustee or trustees appointed, or the
Board of Trustees constituted, by the Area Committee as they
apply in relation to the trustee or trustees appointed, or the Board
of trustees constituted, by the Commissioner.
16. As per Section 42 of the Act, the power to appoint
trustees under Section 39 or Section 41 shall be exercisable
notwithstanding that the scheme, if any, settled, or deemed under
this Act to have been settled for the institution contains provisions
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:44659
to the contrary.
17. In P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine 89], a Division
Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.]
was a party noticed that a reading of the provisions contained in
Sections 39 and 41 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that,
subsection (1) of Section 39 empowers the Commissioner to
constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than three and
not more than five persons appointed by him, in a religious
institution included in the list published under Section 38 or over
which no Area Committee has jurisdiction, which has no hereditary
trustee. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 empowers the
Commissioner, by order to appoint such number of non-hereditary
trustees as he thinks necessary, not exceeding five, in any such
institution having a hereditary trustee or trustees, if the
Commissioner after notice to such trustee or trustees, and after
such enquiry as he deems adequate, considers for reasons to be
recorded, that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not
likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or
trustees. Sub-section (3) of Section 39 deals with the term of
office of the trustees appointed under subsections (1) and (2) of
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:44659
Section 39 of the Act. The provisions under sub-section (5) of
Section 39 of the Act makes it explicitly clear that where a vacancy
arises in the office of a non-hereditary trustee appointed under
sub-section (2) the Commissioner shall not fill up such a vacancy
unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do
so. As per sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Act, in the case of
any religious institution over which an Area Committee has
jurisdiction, the Area Committee shall have the same power to
appoint trustees as is vested in the Commissioner in the case of a
religious institution referred to in Section 39.
18. In P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine 89] it was held
that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 39 and 41 of
the Act, any appointment of non-hereditary trustees in a religious
institution having hereditary trustee or trustees, by the
Commissioner invoking the provisions under sub-section (2) of
Section 39 of the Act, or by the concerned Area Committee
invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the
Act, has to be made after notice to such trustee or trustees, after
such enquiry as he deems adequate and for reasons to be
recorded that the affairs of the religious institution are not, and
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:44659
are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee
or trustees. For filling up the vacancy in the office of non-
hereditary trustees appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 39
of the Act, the Commissioner or the Area Committee, as the case
may be, has to record reasons, as per the mandate of sub-section
(5) of Section 39, read with sub-section (1) of Section 41.
Therefore, neither the Commissioner nor the Area Committee can
issue an order filling up the vacancy of non-hereditary trustees
appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, in a
religious institution having hereditary trustee or trustees, as a
routine order, in continuation of the earlier order appointing non-
hereditary trustees in that religious institution.
19. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom
Board would submit that the question as to whether the vacancy
in the office of the non-hereditary trustees appointed under sub-
section (2) of Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 has to be filled up, will be
decided by the Area Committee, Malappuram Division, as per the
mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 39, taking note of the law
laid down by this Court in P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:44659
89], with notice to the hereditary trustees of the said temple,
before taking a decision to issue fresh notification inviting
application for appointment of non-hereditary trustees.
20. Regarding collection of funds by the additional 8th
respondent Temple Renovation Committee, the stand taken in the
counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Commissioner,
Malabar Devaswom Board, is that the Renovation Committee for
construction of office and toilet was approved as per order in
A4.4944/2022 dated 11.01.2023, subject to the conditions in
Circular No.HR5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the
Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration) Department. The plan and estimate
of the work were approved by Ext.P3 order dated 04.02.2023 of
the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. The
construction of office building and Sreekovil of Sub Deities is in its
initial stage. The amount of Rs.90,855/- and Rs.65,382/- spent
towards foundation work are reported to be from the personal
funds of the President and a member of the Renovation
Committee, for which no receipts were printed, and no collection
was made from the public. Hence no bank account was opened in
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:44659
the name of the Renovation Committee. It is also stated that there
is no evidence regarding collection of funds from the public and
that Ext.P8 is only a notice regarding Sivarathri festival, in which
the phone numbers were shown for enquiry. There is no allegation
that the said phone numbers were connected with GPay or that
amounts were collected through any accounts.
21. We do not propose to consider the rival contentions on
the above aspect in these proceedings. It is for the petitioners to
submit a proper complaint before the 1st respondent
Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, along with supporting
materials and pursue that complaint in accordance with law.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the
competent authority in the 2nd respondent Malabar Devaswom
Board with a proper request to hand over the management and
administration of Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple,
producing therewith documents to substantiate the fact that
petitioners 2 and 3 are the seniormost persons of Kadalayi Mana
and Payyoor Mana. The claim of the 5th petitioner that he is the
seniormost member of Puthuvaay Mana, who is also entitled to be
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:44659
one among the hereditary trustees of Sree Thrikkanamukku
Mahadeva Temple, has to be established in accordance with law,
by invoking the provisions under Section 57(b) of the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The
submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar
Devaswom Board that the question as to whether the vacancy in
the office of the non-hereditary trustees appointed under sub-
section (2) of Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 has to be filled up, will be
decided by the Area Committee, Malappuram Division, as per the
mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 39, taking note of the law
laid down by this Court in P.V. Sankaran [2025 KHC OnLine
89], with notice to the hereditary trustees of the said temple,
before taking a decision to issue fresh notification inviting
application for appointment of non-hereditary trustees of Sree
Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple, is recorded. In case there is
any illegal collection of money from the devotees and public by
the additional 8th respondent Temple Renovation Committee, it is
for the petitioners to submit a proper complaint before the 1 st
respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, along with
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:44659
supporting materials and pursue that complaint in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
WP(C) NO. 11370 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:44659
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11370/2025
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECEIPT PERTAINING TO
THE TEMPLE PROPERTY IN SY NO 72/10 OF
VYLATHUR VILLAGE DT 02/12/2023.
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECEIPT PERTAINING TO
THE TEMPLE PROPERTY IN SY NO 72/3 OF VYLATHUR
VILLAGE DT 29/07/2024
Exhibit P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECEIPT PERTAINING TO
THE TEMPLE PROPERTY IN SY NO 67/1 OF VYLATHUR
VILLAGE DT 17/08/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO A4-3814/2014/MDB DT
19/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO H8-6149/2022/MDB
DT 04.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17/11/2023 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17/11/2023 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT 18/11/2023
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VADAKKEKKAD GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 400668/BFMC03/
GPO/2023/6693/(8) DT 10/07/2024 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, VADAKKEKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT