IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34667 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AMBIKA DEVI, VALIYAKATTOTTU KOVILAKAM, VAIRAMKODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE(DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, (REVENUE DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,ERANIPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,ERANIPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION, TIRUR-676 121. tss W.P.(C) NO.34667/2010 ADDL. R6 & R7 IMPLEADED. 6. MANIKANTAN V., S/O. KOTHA, AGED 37 YEARS, VARIPADATH HOUSE, P.O.VAIRAMKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 301. 7. T.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. RARUKUTTY NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, THIYYADATH HOUSE, P.O.KURUMBATHOOR, THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM. ADDL. R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 08/12/2010 IN IA. 16269/2010 . R2 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM ADDL. R6 & R7 BY SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.35933 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP(C) Nos.34667 & 35933 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 8th December 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. WP(C) No.34667 of 2010 The petitioner herein claims that she is eligible to be appointed as the hereditary trustee of the temple in question. She claims that she is eligible to succeed to the former hereditary trustee, who is no more. There are considerable confusions, assertions and counter assertions as to whether there was a request for appointment of or for recognition as hereditary trustee. Whatever that be, when a hereditary trustee is not available by reason of death, it is the bounden duty of the statutory authority to identify the next hereditary trustee and it is only when the said authority concludes that no hereditary trustee is available, would the question of appointing a non- hereditary trustee arise, unless of course, the power to appoint a non-hereditary trustee in terms of the provisions of the Act becomes necessary to be enforced. Ext.R2(a) produced along WPC 34667/10 & 35933/10 2 with the counter statement of the second respondent clearly discloses that attempts are on to identify the hereditary trustee. Therefore, that exercise has to be carried to its logical end by issuing notice, atleast by publication in the notice board of the temple in question, calling for priority claims. Taking this into consideration, it is ordered that the competent authority in the Malabar Devaswom Board in terms of the statute will consider the question as to who is the hereditary trustee of the temple in question and issue orders finally in that regard within an outer limit of three months from today, without fail, after conducting proper enquiry. 2. In the interregnum, following the directions of this court in a different matter, the arrangement for management of the temple will be that an executive officer be in full charge. As regards appointment of non-hereditary trustees is concerned, consultation with hereditary trustee, if and when necessary, is a requirement in terms of the statute. Therefore, any proposal for appointment of non-hereditary trustee will stand deferred awaiting the decision of the competent authority as regards the hereditary trustee in terms of the aforesaid directions. We also WPC 34667/10 & 35933/10 3 clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or otherwise. WP(C) No.35933/10 The issue raised herein does not merit consideration at this point of time since vide separate judgment in WP(C) No.34667/10, we have deferred consideration of selection of the non-hereditary trustee. All other issues are left open. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 34667/10 & 35933/10 4