JUDGMENT : THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging proceedings leading to Ext.P-18, an order issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. 2. Ext.P-14 notification was issued by the Devaswom Commissioner u/s 37(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". That was a preliminary notification calling for objections to the tentative decision to pass an order of assumption of the Ambattukavu Bhagavathy Temple, Thaikkattukara, Aluva west Village. Objections were filed. Therefore, a decision as to whether the management of the institution has to be assumed or not had to be taken by the competent authority, namely, the Devaswom Commissioner. He, however, issued the impugned Ext.P-18 in purported exercise of powers under Sections 41 and 42(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 41, the Commissioner has proceeded to dissolve the committee functioning by virtue of Trust Deed No. 205/1993 and removed the committee in purported exercise of that power. The Administrative Officer of the Travavancore Devaswom Board in Aluva was appointed u/s 42(1) as the Administrative Officer. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner was directed to constitute a new temple advisory committee in the temple. This is on the basis that there is a purported dissolution of the committee in office. The Administrative Officer, Aluva was directed to take charge of the temple within 15 days from the date of notification, i.e., Ext.P-18. The writ petition is filed challenging the decision contained in Ext.P-18 notification. 3. When proceedings are taken u/s 37 and an order of assumption passed on any grounds mentioned u/s 37(1), any person aggrieved by it has a right to suit before the competent District Court in terms of Section 37(4) of the Act. That is a statutory right. The right is to file a suit before a court. This means that the legislative provision is one for adjudication by the competent court. The exercise of that statutory power by the court would result in a judicial decision. Therefore, the right to sue u/s 37(4) is very valuable. Not only that, even in terms of that provision, the order of assumption will become final subject to the result of the suit. This means that in the normal course of proceedings and procedures, it is only through a suit u/s 37(4) could a decision for assumption u/s 37(1) be impeached. Not only that, even in terms of that provision, the order of assumption will become final subject to the result of the suit. This means that in the normal course of proceedings and procedures, it is only through a suit u/s 37(4) could a decision for assumption u/s 37(1) be impeached. This right to have redressal through the judicial process cannot be nipped or crippled by the issuance of a notification, as if it were a composite one, under Sections 37, 41 and 42. 4. The impugned Ext.P-18 notification has been published. In terms thereof, the Administrative Officer has taken charge. If it were a decision u/s 37(1), any person aggrieved has a right to sue u/s 37(4) because the impugned Ext.P-18 order results in a decision as to assumption of management. In this premise, all that needs to be ensured is that the right, if any, of the writ Petitioner to challenge before the District Court, the decision as to assumption of management, has to be appropriately protected. 5. The procedure before the District Court is not, in any manner, regulated by any other provisions of the Act. What is provided for u/s 37(4) of the Act is a suit. This means that the District Court will be well within authority to pass such interlocutory orders as may be found necessary in relation to the affairs of the temple, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, during the pendency of any suit that may be filed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we order that Ext.P-18 will be treated as an order issued u/s 37(1)(e) of the Act and the order therein that the present committee functioning by virtue of the Trust Deed shall stand dissolved and removed u/s 41 would stand stayed. The direction in Ext.P-18 to the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Vaikom to constitute a new temple advisory committee is also stayed. The Administrative Officer, Aluva will continue to be provisionally in charge of the temple under the control of the Devaswom Commissioner for the purpose of affairs of the temple following Ext.P-18 for the time being. 7. Following this, the District Court before which any suit may be filed against Ext.P-18 will be at liberty to treat Ext.P-18 as only an order u/s 37(1)(e) of the Act, decide on the contentions of the rival parties and also consider any application for interlocutory relief. 7. Following this, the District Court before which any suit may be filed against Ext.P-18 will be at liberty to treat Ext.P-18 as only an order u/s 37(1)(e) of the Act, decide on the contentions of the rival parties and also consider any application for interlocutory relief. Any direction issued herein would not stand in the way of the district court passing such final orders or interlocutory orders, as may be found just and necessary, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in accordance with law. It is also ordered that the period of pendency of this writ petition from 22-12-2009, the date of its presentation, till the date of issuance of certified copy of this judgment will be considered by the District Court for exclusion as regards the limitation. 8. Any temple advisory committee, if constituted as per the orders already issued by this Court, was obviously intended to be only temporary, having regard to the fact that they were interim orders and such committees, if they have already assumed charge, will stand dissolved by the force of this judgment. We further direct that the directions issued herein above regarding the management, in the absence of any suit, will continue only for one month from now. If no suit is filed within that time, the parties will be governed by Ext.P-18. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Issue certified copy to all parties on payment of due fee. Communicate to Ombudsman.