JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the third respondent in modification of Ext.P1 Scheme formulated for the temples under the trusteeship of Chirakkal Valiya Raja, pursuant to Ext.P2 verdict passed by the Sub Court, Thalassery and the verdict passed by this Court in MFA No.255 of 1982, which is virtually contrary to the mandate of the statutory provisions (Section 58(6) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act)without effecting any consultation and without proper hearing and obviously being contrary to the amendment proposed and contrary to the notice/draft order issued vide Ext.P7/P8. 2. The petitioners are the Trustee and the Executive Officer of the Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom. There were about 38 temples under the above Devaswom and the administration of the temples under said Devaswom is being effected on the basis of Ext.P1 Scheme dated 29.05.1972, formulated by the third respondent as per the proceedings in O.A.No. 8 of 1971. The Scheme was modified later as per Ext.P2 verdict dated 18.12.1981 of the Sub Court, Thalassery in O.S.No.219 of 1978. The same was upheld by this Court while passing the verdict in MFA No.255 of 1982. 3. As pointed out already, since there were 38 temples under the Devaswom and since the Scheme contained no provision for transferring employees under the Devaswom from one temple to another temple, safeguarding the interests of the Devaswom, devotees and employees, Ext.P3 proposal was made as the draft rules in modification of the existing Scheme for transfer of employees. Certain other amendments were also sought for as per Ext.P3. After considering the same, the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner allowed all amendments except incorporation of 'Cl. 7(g)' providing for transfer, as per Ext.P4 order dated 11.09.2013 in O.A.No.16 of 2012. The reason for not approving Cl.7(g) was that, as per a common judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)34096/08 and connected cases, it was held that each temple under the petitioner Devaswom was to be treated as a single Unit. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the said common judgment was subjected to challenge in W.A.No.1635 of 2013 and connected cases. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the said common judgment was subjected to challenge in W.A.No.1635 of 2013 and connected cases. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge was set aside, as per Ext.P6 verdict dated 21.03.2014 and the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner was directed to re-consider the request of the Trustee for introduction of Cl.7(g), as sought for in his application within the time stipulated therein, also ordering 'status quo' to be continued. 4. Pursuant to the above judgment, Ext.P7 notice was issued by the third respondent on 26.05.2014 referring to the amendment proposed by the petitioners in the following terms, also calling for objections: “The Executive Officer shall have power to transfer employees from one temple to another temple without affecting the official status/grade etc. in case he is satisfied that transfer is necessary for the proper administration and smooth functioning of the temple”. Thereafter, Ext.P8 notice was issued on 24.11.2014 attaching the draft amendment, calling for suggestions/objections if any, listing the matter for consideration on 22.12.2014. It is revealed from the proceedings that, some objections were received, which mainly did not challenge the authority to transfer, but to provide for appropriate provisions for effecting promotion of the employees as well. It was thereafter, that Ext.P9 order came to be issued on 16.01.2015, finalising the draft rules/amendment, which according to the petitioner is far from the original track and proposal made, in so far as it restricted the transfer only in cases where 'promotion is involved' or it was required by way of punishment; adding much more with reference to the seniority list to be prepared and the promotions to be effected by the Devaswom. 5. The above stipulations were far beyond the original proposal or the draft amendment already issued vide Ext.P8 and hence it was contended that there was no consultation with the petitioners as envisaged under the statute (Section 58(6) of the HR & CE Act) and no opportunity of hearing was given in this regard. Though the petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal along with the petition to condone the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 61 of the HR & CE Act before the second respondent, pursuant to Ext.P11 objections, the petition to condone the delay was dismissed, holding that there was no provision to condone the delay in the Statute and as a natural consequence, the appeal was also dismissed. It was on passing Ext.P12 order by the appellate authority as above, that the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, challenging Ext.P9 order and also seeking for other reliefs, as mentioned therein. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the second respondent Malabar Devaswom Board as well as by the 5th respondent, in response to which the petitioners have filed separate reply affidavits. An additional affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent, whereupon, the petitioners have filed an additional reply affidavit. This led to an additional affidavit and additional reply affidavit of the 5th respondent against the contents of the additional reply affidavit of the petitioners. Additional documents have been filed by the parties in the aforesaid proceedings. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties including the Devaswom, at length. 8. A question on the maintainability of the writ petition is raised by the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, pointing out that Ext.P10 appeal was filed belatedly; that there is no provision to condone the delay in the statute and as such, dismissal of the proceedings by way of Ext.P12, which is not under challenge, will close the door before the petitioner forever. 9. According to Mr. Sreegesh M.K., the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no decision by the appellate authority on merit and as such, it is not necessary to challenge Ext.P12. It is however pointed out that, Ext.P9 order passed by the third respondent is a quasi-judicial order and the second respondent / appellate authority is to exercise similar jurisdiction. Making a reference to Section 95 of the Act dealing with the procedure, it is pointed out that CPC is applicable, so also the Evidence Act, and the Oaths Act, 1969 and provision is there with regard to protection to the Commissioner as well as the Dy. Commissioner. Reference is also made to the relevant rules. As such, the proceedings before the Commissioner are having all the trappings of the Civil Court and hence Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable, which power ought to have been exercised by the Commissioner while dealing with Ext. P10. 10. Commissioner. Reference is also made to the relevant rules. As such, the proceedings before the Commissioner are having all the trappings of the Civil Court and hence Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable, which power ought to have been exercised by the Commissioner while dealing with Ext. P10. 10. Referring to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Maqbool Hussain vs. State of Bombay ( AIR 1953 SC 325 ), it is stated that even if there are no trappings of Civil Court, principles of limitation and the power to condone delay can still be applied. Reliance is sought to be placed on various rulings rendered by the Apex Court as reported in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Coop. Bank Ltd. ( AIR 1967 SC 1494 ), Sarathy vs. State Bank of India [ 2000(2) KLT 771 (SC), Kumaradasan Nair vs. IRIC Sohan [2009 (1) KLT 874 (SC)] and M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (2) KLT 996(SC). In response to a query raised by this Court, with reference to the law declared by the Supreme Court recently in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. and others [ (2017) 5 SCC 42 ], holding that once the period stipulated in the Statute for condoning the delay is exhausted, further delay cannot be condoned even by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is in respect of a case where the statute stipulates a 'ceiling' as to the maximum delay which can be condoned, which is conspicuously absent under section 61 of the HR & CE Act or elsewhere. As such, it is always open for the appellate authority to invoke the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to condone the delay; subject to satisfactory explanation offered in this regard. It is further pointed out that, alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the matter by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the petitioners can challenge Ext.P9 independently before this Court, if it is not passed in conformity with the statutory requirements. 11. It is further pointed out that, alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the matter by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the petitioners can challenge Ext.P9 independently before this Court, if it is not passed in conformity with the statutory requirements. 11. The learned Sr.Counsel for the 5th respondent submits, with reference to the pleadings and some materials produced, that there is an attempt on the part of the petitioners making misrepresentation, by producing some forged documents. The petitioners have sought to explain the position, stating that no such attempt has been made by them and have tried to explain the circumstances. Considering the nature of basic issue projected, this Court is of the view that other incidental aspects need not be looked into for the time being and it may be necessary only if the basic contention as to the validity of Ext.P9 and the entertainability of the matter are answered against the petitioners. 12. There is no dispute to the fact that Ext.P1 Scheme formulated by the second respondent was subsequently modified by the Sub Court, Thalassery as per Ext.P2 and the same was upheld by this Court as per the judgment in MFA 255 of 1982. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Devaswom is having as many as 38 temples under the Devaswom and according to them, transfer of employees from one temple to another temple (without affecting the service conditions/nature of post to which placement is given)are not altered or reduced. It was accordingly, that amendment of the Scheme was sought for, in the best interest of the Devaswom, devotees and employees, with the following proposition as contained in clause 7(g)' of Ext.P3: “7g' The Executive Officer shall have power to transfer employees from one temple to another temple without affecting the official status/Grade etc. in case he is satisfied that transfer is necessary for the proper administration and smooth functioning of the temple”. 13. The third respondent allowed the amendment in respect of all items, except Clause 7(g)' vide Ext.P4, stating that the amendment by way of clause 7(g)' was not possible in view of the ruling rendered by this Court in some writ petitions. 13. The third respondent allowed the amendment in respect of all items, except Clause 7(g)' vide Ext.P4, stating that the amendment by way of clause 7(g)' was not possible in view of the ruling rendered by this Court in some writ petitions. The verdict passed by the learned single Judge in the said petitions had in fact been challenged by the petitioners by way of W.A. 1635 of 2013, wherein Ext.P6 judgment was passed, whereby the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge was set aside and the statutory authority was directed to reconsider the matter with regard to the changed proposal by the petitioners under Clause 7(g)'. It was pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench, that Ext.P7 notice was issued, followed by Ext.P8 'Draft Scheme' by way of amendment, leading to finalisation of the proceedings vide Ext.P9 order. 14. The first question to be considered is whether Ext.P12 order passed by the appellate authority holding that there is no provision to condone the delay, in turn dismissing the application to condone the delay and the appeal, is correct or sustainable. The further question is whether non-challenging of Ext.P12 order will place a bar in front of the petitioners in getting the matter agitated before this Court in this writ petition. The remaining question to be considered is whether the petitioners can challenge Ext.P9 before this Court, if the same is not in conformity with the statutory requirements i.e passed after effecting consultation with the petitioners. 15. This Court is of the view that the first two questions need be considered only if the third question is answered against the petitioners. It remains a fact that, as per the settled position of law, alternate remedy is not a bar for entertaining the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power is, of course, with the Court to entertain such matters, in appropriate cases. The question is only whether this Court should exercise such power, when alternate remedy is there. Admittedly, no decision on merit has been passed by the second respondent/appellate authority on Ext.P10 appeal and as such, the principle of merger is not attracted. Merely for the reason that the petitioners have not challenged Ext.P12 order passed by the second respondent, they cannot be non-suited on this ground, if the proceedings are otherwise liable to be entertained. 16. Admittedly, no decision on merit has been passed by the second respondent/appellate authority on Ext.P10 appeal and as such, the principle of merger is not attracted. Merely for the reason that the petitioners have not challenged Ext.P12 order passed by the second respondent, they cannot be non-suited on this ground, if the proceedings are otherwise liable to be entertained. 16. Considering the scope of challenge raised against Ext.P9, the basic ground for challenge is that, it was passed without any consultation with the petitioners, inspite of the specific provision contained in the statute in this regard. 17. Sections 58(6) and 58(8) of the HR & CE are reproduced below: “58. Power of Deputy Commissioner to frame Scheme: (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) xxxx (4) xxxx (5) xxxx (6) The Deputy Commissioner may, at any time, after consulting the trustee and the persons having interest and the Area Committee, if any, having jurisdiction over the Institution, by order, modify or cancel any scheme settled under sub-section (1) or a scheme settled by the Board under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926.” (7) xxxx (8) The powers conferred by this section, shall, in respect of maths, be exercised by the Commissioner or by a Deputy Commissioner to whom powers in this behalf have been delegated by the Commissioner under Section 10, sub-section (2).” 18. When the petitioners contended that there was no consultation before passing Ext.P9, the 5th respondent asserts that all statutory formalities had been complied with and that the petitioners were heard through their counsel (by name Shibu as mentioned in Ext.P9) and as such, it is only a bald allegation. 19. From the statutory position noted above, it is quite evident that the existing Scheme can be modified or amended only after effecting consultation with the Trustees/ first petitioner. To analyse and appreciate as to whether there was any consultation before passing Ext.P9, reference is necessary to the previous proceedings. 20. The amendment was found necessary by the petitioners for proper administration of 38 temples under the Devaswom, so as to facilitate transfer of employees from one temple to another and it was accordingly, that such a proposal was mooted along with amendments sought for in respect of some other heads as well, vide Ext.P3. Clause 7(g)' of Ext.P3 is such an amendment, which has already been extracted. Clause 7(g)' of Ext.P3 is such an amendment, which has already been extracted. This was considered by the third respondent, who brought about Ext.P4 draft amendment, whereby all amendments except Clause 7(g)' were allowed and the draft amendment scheme was formulated accordingly, which was published on 16.11.2013. Since no objection was stated as received within the stipulated time, the draft amendment was finalised as per Ext.P5 on 17.01.2014. 21. As mentioned already and as evident from Ext.P4, the non-approval of Clause 7(g) was based on the report submitted by the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, that further probe was necessary, as each temple was treated as a single Unit. Reference was also made to the common judgment passed by this Court in W.P(C)34096 of 2008 and connected cases, to the effect that each temple was to be treated as a single Unit. But the said judgment was admittedly set aside by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P6 and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to re-consider the refusal to grant amendment by introduction of Clause 7(g)' also, as sought for in the application preferred by the Trustee. Pursuant to said judgment, Ext.P7 notice was issued notifying the amendment proposed to be effected in the following terms (exactly in similar terms as proposed by the Trustee in Ext.P3): “The Executive Officer shall have power to transfer employees from one temple to another temple without affecting official status/grade etc in case he is satisfied that transfer is necessary for the proper administration and smooth functioning of the temple” 22. Later, a draft of the Amendment Scheme was notified as per Ext.P8, wherein it was observed that the main issue was whether the 38 temples coming under Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom are to be treated as a 'single Unit' for all administrative purposes or whether they are different units which stands in unison only regarding certain financial matters. 23. The objections received have been discussed by the third respondent in Ext.P8 and one such objection preferred by Sri C. Narayanan Nambuthiri, Melshanthi of Sri Karivallur Siva Temple was that Chirakkal Kovilakam Devawom was a composite unit; that employees were being transferred from one Unit to another Unit and that qualified employees were being promoted and posted to the temples of higher grade. Some examples are also referred to. Some examples are also referred to. A letter of the Executive Officer submitted before the Commissioner on 11.06.2012 was also produced and it was stated that the objector had no objection in making necessary amendments, in accordance with the submissions in that letter, whereby the Executive Officer had recommended certain proposals regarding transfer and promotions of employees serving in the 38 temples under the above Devaswom. Another objection was from one K.K. Purushothaman, who put forth some suggestions that, while making transfers, seniority and other service conditions of the employees shall be protected. 24. Notice of hearing was issued to the Trustee and the parties, who filed objections and suggestions and as per the report dated 11.09.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner, it was suggested that the employees could be transferred without disturbing their status and grade of the temples and that the proposed amendment could be allowed. According to the temple employees, along with the transfer, provision for promotion to higher grade temples should also be formulated. It is with reference to the above proceedings, that an observation was made, that at the time of hearing, virtually all the parties 'agreed' for effecting transfer and promotion. It was accordingly that the existing Scheme was intended to be modified, incorporating Clause 7(g) and the draft of the Amendment Scheme was extracted, as given below: “Clause 7(g) The executive officer shall have power to transfer employees from one temple to another temple without effecting the official status/grade in case he is satisfied that transfer is necessary for the proper administration and smooth functioning of the temple. The appointing authority shall effect promotions from the seniority list prepared by the trustee so that senior most employee of a lower grade temple can be promoted to the higher grade temple on the basis of his seniority and qualification.” 25. Things took a different turn, when Ext.P8 Draft of the Amendment Scheme came to be finalised as per Ext.P9 order dated 16.01.2015. The amendment of 'Clause 7(g)' proposed in Ext.P3 was extracted therein and the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.09.2014 to the effect that the modification can be considered without affecting the status and grade of the employee as well as the grade of the temple, was also adverted to. The amendment of 'Clause 7(g)' proposed in Ext.P3 was extracted therein and the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.09.2014 to the effect that the modification can be considered without affecting the status and grade of the employee as well as the grade of the temple, was also adverted to. The version to the Trustee that intention was nothing but transfer of employees from one temple to another by retaining their grades and their objection with regard to preparation of seniority list and promotion of employees, as it was not possible for the Trustee to prepare Seniority List, since the day to day administration was being carried out by the Executive Officer, was also noted therein. Thereafter, the third respondent proceeded further, by saying something of his own to justify the preparation of seniority list, promotion and restricting the transferable instances, which do not find a place or footing in Ext.P7 notice already issued, Ext.P8 Draft amendment already published and the consultation/discussion held so far. For his own reason, the third respondent found that, if an employee was transferred from one temple to another, the approved schedule will be interfered with and frequent transfers will make the matters worse, and it will pave the way for misuse, by transferring employees even to non-existent posts and Chaos will prevail; adding that the transfer provided in the draft scheme was impossible. Stating that promotion of the employee was necessary for efficiency of service and pointing out that a pragmatic implementation was being made, combining the transfer mooted by the Trustee and promotion sought for by the employees, Clause 7(g) was totally modified , holding that no transfer of employees other than 'appointment by transfer' or 'promotion' or by way of 'punishment' shall be effected, besides stating several things with regard to seniority list and promotion under Sub-Clauses (i) to (xi) of Clause 7(g), which are reproduced below for convenience of reference: “7(g) – Notwithstanding anything contained in the scheme to the contrary, transfer and appointment of employees shall be regulated as follows: (i)(a) There shall be no transfer of employees other than appointment by transfer promotion to an approved vacancy existing in a temple of a higher grade from the temple of a next below grade and by punishment as provided in para (x) herein. (b) Promotion by transfer shall be made only to the existing and approved vacancies. (b) Promotion by transfer shall be made only to the existing and approved vacancies. (c) Transfer by way of punishment shall be only to the same designated posts of the same or similar scale of pay. (ii) Each of the temples shall be considered as distinct and separate unit for the purpose of promotion to higher posts except the post of manager in a temple from the qualified employees thereat alone. The 'ulthurai' servants shall not supersede a qualified outdoor servant on promotion to a higher post existing in the line of promotion of outdoor staff of the same temple. In the absence of a qualified candidate in the same temple qualified candidate from the temple of the next below grade shall be eligible for promotion. (iii) In the absence of a qualified candidate, for promotion to fill up the vacancies of the temples of the grades “Special” to “C” it shall be filled up by promotion from the qualified employees of the temples, from the grades next below to it, and in such transfer appointment by promotion the employees of the same category of the existing vacancy to be filled i.e., the outdoor vacancies from the outdoor employees and indoor vacancies from the indoor employees, as the case may be of the temple of the next below grade, shall get priority to others. (iv) In filling up of the vacancies of the Central Devaswom Office, the qualified and willing employees of the special grade temples shall be eligible who shall not be superseded by any employees of the temples of the other grades. In the absence of qualified candidate in the special grade, the qualified employees of the temple next below grades, and so on shall be eligible. (v) In filling up of the vacancies of the managers of the entry cadre the qualified and willing candidates of the Central Devaswom Office shall not be superseded by the employees of other temples of Chirakkal Kovilakam Group Devaswoms. In the absence of willing candidates, in that grade the qualified seniors ministerial wing of the temple of the grade next below and so on shall get priority. In the absence of willing candidates, in that grade the qualified seniors ministerial wing of the temple of the grade next below and so on shall get priority. (vi) Promotion shall be made by preparing seniority lists, for each category of posts separately for each temples and common seniority list for the vacancies in the post of manager as well as the vacancies occur in Central Devaswom office and other temples of the grades “Special” to “C” giving priority in accordance with the subclauses mentioned herein. (vii) The Seniority list shall be prepared and published with 30 days notice by inviting objections if any, and it shall be finalised by the Executive Officer and final list shall be published in all the temples concerned after hearing the parties, and with the approval of the Trustee against which an appeal shall lie against the decision, to the Deputy Commissioner, which shall be final. (viii) The appointment committee shall decide upon all the cases of promotion as per rules, in accordance with seniority list finalised and published as provided in sub clause (vii). In the case of dispute as to the provisional seniority list, appointment shall be made only after finalisation of the dispute. (ix) The schedule establishment of all the managers shall be framed and obtained approval from the Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Thalassery by attaching it under the schedule of establishment of Devaswom Central Office, and salary of the managers shall be disbursed from the Central Devaswom funds. (x) The transfer on punishment shall be as provided in the rules under Section 49 of the Act, for the reasons recorded in writing on the confirmed grounds of charges on preliminary enquiry. In such cases transfer shall be made to the existing vacancies, of the temples of the same grade alone and such changes shall be got approved with attested entries in the Schedule of establishment of the temples concerned, by the authorities under the Act. (xi) The hereditary employees shall not be eligible for any promotion as prescribed in this Scheme” 26. (xi) The hereditary employees shall not be eligible for any promotion as prescribed in this Scheme” 26. On going through the contents of Ext.P9, implementing the amendment of 'Clause 7(g)' in the form as put forth by the third respondent, it can be easily seen that it was never the proposal made by the petitioner Trustee in Ext.P3, nor was it the matter directed to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, where, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to re-consider the request of the Trustee for introduction of Clause 7(g) as sought for in his application. It is also evident that, absolutely no notice or proceeding was issued to the petitioner Trustee, as to the changes now brought about to Clause 7(g) in Ext.P9 by the third respondent. It goes without saying that there was no consultation in this regard. This being the position, it is quite obvious, that Ext.P9 has been passed by the third respondent in total violation of the Scheme of the Statute, i.e. without effecting consultation and it also stands contrary to the specific direction given by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, whereby a direction was given to consider the proposal as sought for in the application and nothing else. The factual position in this regard was found correct by the Appellate Authority as well, while passing Ext.P12 order, where it was observed that “prima facie it is true that the impugned amendment has been made without consultation with the Trustee”. However, interference was declined, holding that the appeal was belated as there was no provision to condone the delay. 27. It is settled law, that if the Statute says something to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner and not by any other manner. Since Ext.P9 order, as it stands now, is without any consultation with the Trustee and further since it is contrary to the specific direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 (whereby, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to re-consider the request of the Trustee for introduction of 'Clause 7(g)' as sought for in his application), it is not liable to be sustained. We hold that the petitioners are entitled to challenge the same by way of the present writ petition. We hold that the petitioners are entitled to challenge the same by way of the present writ petition. Interference declined by the appellate authority with reference to the delay in filing the appeal cannot place any hurdle in the way of this Court in such scrutiny invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the above circumstance, we set aside Ext.P9 and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the third respondent, strictly in conformity with the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 as to the amendment proposed vide Ext.P3. The writ petition stands allowed. No cost.