IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26881 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.T.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O.SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, PERALA, P.O.KOZHUMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.E.KUNHI KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O.PARVATHI AKKAMMA, PERALAM, P.O.KOZHUMMAL, VIA.KARIVELLUR, -DO-. 3. K.K.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DO, DO. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, NEELESWAR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HR & CE, MANNAMPURATHKAVU DEVASWOM, NEELESWAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.26881 of 2008-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The arrangement made as per Ext.P4 being only a stop gap arrangement, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with. The petitioner was plaintiff before the Sub Court, Payyannur which eventually passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as per Ext.P1 judgment holding that the appointment of the non-hereditary trustees is illegal. The Chairman of the temple who was in office, was one among the non-hereditary trustees and in view of the judgment of the Sub Court, Payyannur, the non-hereditary trustees cannot manage the affairs of the temple. They have not appointed or elected a Chairman from themselves. In such circumstances, to avoid any stalemate in the administration, Ext.P4 is issued as a stop gap arrangement. Therefore, none of the rights of the petitioners as such is affected. 2. However, by Ext.P5, the petitioners have already elected one person from among them as Chairman and intimation has been given by Ext.P6. If so, it is for the authority to take immediate steps for cancelling the interim arrangement and restore the charge to the Chairman elected. WPC 26881/2008 -2- This may be done subject to any further proceedings to be initiated by the Department, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/