IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2756 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. M.P. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF MADHAVAN NAIR, "SRUTHILAYAM", CHOROD, VADAKARA. 2. P. JAYA KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF KRISHNAN, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, CHOROD EAST, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SANATH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. BEENA N.V., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, NOOYINKARA, CHOROD, VADAKARA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER (HR & CE), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (HR & CE)(A) DEPARTMENT, THALASSERY. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE CHENNAMANGALAM AYYAPPA TEMPLE, CHOROD, VADAKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 2756 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be two Non Hereditary Trustees of the Sree Chennamangalam Ayyappa Temple. By Exhibit P1 order, the Assistant Commissioner, inter alia, directed the Executive officer of the 4th respondent to elect a Chairman of the Board of Trustees after convening a meeting of the Non Hereditary Trustees. Exhibit P1 was affirmed in Exhibit P2. Petitioners sought for an implementation of Exhibit P1 and further action pursuant to same by submitting Exhibit P3 before the Commissioner. Apparently, action is yet to be taken on the same. In the meanwhile, the Executive Officer had appointed the 1st respondent as Kazhakam. Such appointment was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner vide Exhibit P6 revision. Exhibit P6 revision has been dismissed by the Commissioner under Exhibit P7 order and the same is challenged in the writ petition. W.P ( C) No. 2756 of 2008 2 I heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In so far as the challenge against Exhibit P7 is concerned, I am of the view that petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 99 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Petitioners are free to avail the same. In the light of Exhibit P1, which has been affirmed in Exhibit P2, the Commissioner should consider Exhibit P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take note of Exhibit P3 and take appropriate action thereon, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps in relation to Exhibit P7 order as mentioned above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 2756 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 2756 of 2008 2 25th May, 2007