JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by an elected non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vilakkumadam Venkittaramana Temple, Karicheri, Kasaragod. The petitioner along with the respondents 6 to 9 are elected as non-hereditary trustees pursuant to a notification issued by the third respondent dated 01/01/2014. The election was interfered by the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board as per Ext. P2 at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, invoking power under Section 18 of the Madras HR&C Act. 2. The election was challenged by respondents 4 and 5 before the Commissioner on various grounds. Ultimately in the impugned order, the Commissioner concluded as follows: "It appears that the inspector submitted report mechanically without conducting proper enquiry. If actually, they are residing in more distant places than what is shown in the application then they have given false information. Anyhow the Petitioners repeatedly state that the persons are residing at more distant places and some of them in another Taluk. Selecting 4 persons out of 5 from a single community and 3 of them from the same Tharavadu cannot be sustained, especially one there are qualified applicants from other communities. While appointing non-hereditary trustees to a public temple and where there are applicants from various communities, it is only just and reasonable that representation of all communities shall be ensured as far as possible. Therefore, I feel that there is force in the contentions raised by the Petitioners." 3. The learned counsel Shri. Vipindas T. K. appearing for the petitioner attempted to demonstrate flawed factual findings in the Commissioner's order. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 were elected after the duly conducted interview. It is also pointed out that the distance within the locality of temple is a matter to be ascertained with respect to the actual state of affairs and not by identifying the Village or Taluk. It is submitted that the Commissioner ignored the distance pointed out by the Inspector in his report. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 are residing on the opposite bank of the river and therefore, there is no violation of distance applicable in the matter and the distance rule would not stand in the way of the elected members. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 are residing on the opposite bank of the river and therefore, there is no violation of distance applicable in the matter and the distance rule would not stand in the way of the elected members. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel Shri. K. Shrihari Rao appearing for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that the election was in clear violation of the notification. It is further submitted that the power of judicial review is limited and this Court cannot upset clear findings of fact. He points out to Ext. R4(a) notification produced along with the counter-affidavit which stipulates the qualification. One of the qualifications therein is that the applicant must be a permanent resident of Taluk/Village where the temple is located. It also stipulates that there must be a representation to all communities belonging to Hindu religion. 5. It is to be noted that there is a clear finding in Ext. P2 impugned order of the Commissioner that all 5 elected members are from a single community (Nair) and three among them belong to the same tharavadu. It is also noted that there are qualified applicants from other communities. Assuming that the distance rule would not apply nevertheless there is no infirmity with the finding that there is no equal representation to various communities as stipulated in the notification. There is no denial to the fact that there are other qualified applicants who belonged to other communities. The very purpose of making such stipulations is to create a sense of belonging to all community members that the temple belongs to them in common. There were 12 qualified applicants apart from Nair community, two of them belonged to thiyya and one each belonged to Kavuthiyya, Brahmin and Vaniyen. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope of interference by invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution to upset the findings of fact made by the Commissioner and the Government. This Court need to interfere with the findings of fact only when such findings of fact are absurd and perverse. These findings of fact clearly indicate that the appointment are made contrary to the stipulation in the notification. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.