JUDGMENT K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sree Kuntikana Shankaranarayana Temple, Kasaragod. He is known as 'Muktheswar' (Administrator). His father has been recognised as the hereditary trustee of the said temple by the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Calicut, by Exhibit P1 dated 07/11/1981. It is an order issued under S.57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. On the death of his father, the petitioner was recognised as the hereditary trustee, as per Exhibit P2 proceedings dated 28/08/2008. But, when the petitioner took over the administration, respondents 4 to 13 tried to cause obstruction to the same. So, he caused to issue Exhibit P3 lawyer notice to some of them. The petitioner submits, the said respondents trespassed into the temple premises on 05/09/2008, obstructed the petitioner, threatened him and committed waste there. So, he preferred Exhibit P5 representation before the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod. The police have registered Exhibit P6 first information report against the miscreants. While so, the petitioner moved the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Kasaragod, the first respondent herein. The said respondent by Exhibit P7 communication requested the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod, the 2nd respondent herein to extend necessary police protection to the petitioner to function as the hereditary trustee of the temple. But, the police are not taking any effective action or extending any protection to him, so as to enable him to administer the temple. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate directions to respondents 2 and 3, to implement or enforce Exhibit P7. Consequential reliefs are also sought. 2. Respondents 4 to 12 have filed a counter affidavit. According to them, the hereditary trustee of this temple does not have the usual general power of such trustees in other temples. The trustee has shared most of his powers with a committee formed by the local people. An agreement was entered into between the local people and the hereditary trustee in 1896, concerning the administration of the temple. The parties to that agreement are no more. Later, in the presence of His Holiness Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shreemad Raghavendra Bharathi Swamiji of Ramachandrapura Mutt, Theerthahalli, Exhibit R4(A) agreement was entered into on 05/02/1983, concerning the administration of the temple. It was followed by the formation of a Trust under Exhibit R4(B) trust deed dated 02/09/1983. The parties to that agreement are no more. Later, in the presence of His Holiness Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shreemad Raghavendra Bharathi Swamiji of Ramachandrapura Mutt, Theerthahalli, Exhibit R4(A) agreement was entered into on 05/02/1983, concerning the administration of the temple. It was followed by the formation of a Trust under Exhibit R4(B) trust deed dated 02/09/1983. The petitioners father was a party to that trust deed. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is one of the witnesses to that trust deed. They have also produced Exhibit R4(C) to R4(E) minutes of the meetings of the said Trust. The petitioner had participated in those meetings and many decisions concerning the administration of the temple, including purchase of property, had been taken in them. The respondents further contend that Exhibit P2 order was passed without notice to anyone. A reading of Exhibit P2 would show that a petition was filed before the Assistant Commissioner on 28/08/2008 and on the vary same day, the order was passed. They also submit that Exhibit P7 communication has been issued to the Superintendent of Police by the first respondent, behind their back. None of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act authorises the first respondent to issue that communication. The petitioners father as the hereditary trustee had parted with most of his powers in favour of the Trust. So, even assuming, Exhibit P2 is valid, the petitioner has succeeded as the Muktheswar only with limited powers. Therefore, his attempt to exclude the members of the Trust from the administration of the temple on the strength of Exhibit P2 is ill conceived. The contesting respondents also submitted that they came to know of Exhibits P2 and P7 only on receipt of notice in this Writ Petition and they have also invoked the statutory remedy available to them against Exhibit P2. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dealing with the averments in the counter affidavit. According to him, Exhibit R4(A) is superseded by Exhibit R4(B) and in view of the statutory provisions, Exhibit R4(B) cannot have any efficacy. The members of the Trust cannot act as trustees in the face of the provisions contained in the statute. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that, on the information lodged by the petitioner, the police have registered Exhibit P6 crime. The members of the Trust cannot act as trustees in the face of the provisions contained in the statute. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that, on the information lodged by the petitioner, the police have registered Exhibit P6 crime. The dispute between the parties is concerning the opening of the 'hundi' and the amount collected in it. At present there is no law and order problem warranting interference by the police. Since the petitioner declined to perform poojas in the temple, another person is functioning as the priest of the temple, it is submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the relevant provisions of the statute. S.56 authorises the first respondent to take a decision, if there is any dispute regarding the hereditary trustee. In exercise of that power, Exhibit P2 has been issued. If anybody has got any objection, they have remedies under S.61 of the Act. The petitioners right to manage the temple and exercise all the powers of the hereditary trustee has to be upheld, in the absence of any challenge to Exhibit P2. If anybody has got objection, they have to move the appellate authority under S.61 of the Act and thereafter the Civil Court. Since, his right is undisputed, the first respondent has rightly addressed the police and the police are bound to act as requested in Exhibit P7, it is submitted. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that Exhibit P2 will confer powers on the petitioner to function as the Muktheswar, subject to the provisions of Exhibit R4(B) trust deed. Till the death of his father, father was exercising only those powers, subject to the provisions of that trust deed. On the death of his father, the petitioner cannot succeed something which his father did not enjoy. Further, it is submitted that the present dispute is a civil dispute, which cannot be resolved by the police. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere, it is submitted. 7. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty of the police. In this Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus against the police, we cannot adjudicate on the rights of parties and then ask the police to act based on our finding in that dispute. 7. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty of the police. In this Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus against the police, we cannot adjudicate on the rights of parties and then ask the police to act based on our finding in that dispute. Then this will become a police protection suit, for entertaining which we have no jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Our powers are limited to issuing the writs mentioned in that Article. Our powers in this jurisdiction are coterminus with the failure of duty of police. If the police is shown to have failed to perform their duty under any statute, we will remedy that. If, after perusing the papers submitted by the petitioner, the police have a duty to protect and support him to administer the temple to the exclusion of the contesting respondents, then we may be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. But, we are of the view that the police do not have any such power and it will be dangerous to concede any such power to the police. It is one of the essential principles of rule of law that dispute between the parties have to be decided by independent Courts, which cannot be influenced by the executive or the parties to the dispute. Further, the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy of moving the Civil Court. He can get an injunction against the contesting respondents, if the claim regarding his right to administer the temple to the exclusion of the said respondents, is valid. That Court can address the police also to enforce its orders, if found necessary. In this civil dispute, we are of the definite view that the police cannot be asked to involve themselves in favour of one side or the other. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, as the same may prejudice one side or the other, when the matter is taken up before the competent Court. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and the right of the petitioner to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. This judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action, if any cognizable offence is reported by either side.