IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6025 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.UNNIKRISHNAN, KUZHIKATTIL HOUSE, KARINGAPARA-676320. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.ROY JOSEPH SMT.M.S.SOUJATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, TIRUR-676121. 4. TRUSTEE BOARD, SREE VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, ANATAVUR, VAIRAMKODE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676301. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.6025 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. The petitioner has two fold contentions. One is that the Assistant Commissioner is not within jurisdiction to invite applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the temple in question. On the other hand, he would complain that his application given to the Assistant Commissioner, by hand, for such appointment, is not being considered. The petitioner cannot have such contradicting stand, at any rate, in writ jurisdiction. On the question whether the petitioner had sent his application in terms of the provisions of Ext.P2 invitation, the matter cannot be decided merely on the basis of the assertion of the petitioner that he gave the application by hand, when the Assistant Commissioner has already intimated him that his application was not received and that he may WPC.6025/11 2 provide evidence of having given such application. These issues which generate mixed questions of facts and law cannot be decided without adjudication on the basis of controverting evidence. We do not, therefore, deem it appropriate for this Court to exercise its visitorial jurisdiction, that too, in relation to the question whether the petitioner was entitled to apply for being appointed as a non-hereditary trustee in the temple in question. The writ petition fails. The same is dismissed without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to seek relief from any statutory or other authority, as the case may be. We also clarify that this does not, in any manner, impair the effect of the judgments issued by us in relation to the same issue and the appointments of hereditary/non-hereditary trustees in temples. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.1/3.