JUDGMENT : The Alappuzha Anandanarayanapuram Thuravur Thirumala Devaswom is a Hindu Public Religious Trust. The administration of the above Devaswom is governed by the Scheme framed by the District Court, Alappuzha in O.S. No.8 of 1958. 2. This original petition is filed by an Election Commission, which was constituted by the General Body. In the process of election, certain nominations received by the Election Commission have been rejected. This resulted in such candidates approaching the District Court. The District Court originally allowed such challenge by a non-speaking order. This was challenged before this Court in an original petition at the instance of Election Commissioner and members of the Election Commission. This Court set aside the order with a direction to reconsider the matter including the maintainability. Thereafter, the Court below passed an elaborate order produced as Ext.P16 and found that rejection of nomination is erroneous and illegal. This order is challenged by the petitioners, the election commission, in this original petition. 3. It is to be noted that the challenge made by the candidates before the District Court is not by invoking any original jurisdiction of the Court, but based on the Scheme approved by the Court and in terms of the Scheme. That means, the Court retains the control in relation to the administration as well as election if so warranted. In that sense, it has to be understood that it was not an adjudication of normal nature and was an exercise of power that is referable to the Scheme. In that background, the question raised by the Election Commission has to be adverted. 4. The first point which is urged before this Court is that, the Court below did not advert to the maintainability of the election petition. The very case of the Election Commission is that once selection process is commenced, no Court shall interfere with the process of election. Secondly, it is argued that the rejection was on valid grounds and the Court could not have interfered with such order, except otherwise through a properly constituted election petition after the election is over. 5. The very case of the Election Commission is that once selection process is commenced, no Court shall interfere with the process of election. Secondly, it is argued that the rejection was on valid grounds and the Court could not have interfered with such order, except otherwise through a properly constituted election petition after the election is over. 5. In regard to the first argument regarding the maintainability, in fact the Court below adverted to the above aspects, the Court below relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manda Jagannath v. K.S. Retnam and Others [ (2004) 7 SCC 492 ] held that an erroneous action of Returning Officer can be interfered even before election is concluded. The question therefore is whether that decision regarding maintainability is correct or not. It is noted that this Court exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, need not upset finding on a fact unless such finding is so perverse or erroneous. In that scenario like this Court cannot hold that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court have adopted parens patriae role for the public trust, therefore the Court has every power to ensure that the election is conducted in terms of the Scheme. Thus, the Court below appreciated the decision of the Election Commissioner in a perspective, in which it ought to have required to be addressed. Having addressed such dispute in terms of the Scheme and bylaw, this Court is of the view that there is no other maintainability issue arises to be considered by the Court. In this regard, the merit of the contention is essentially on a finding of facts. The Court below appreciated the given facts and found that the decision to reject the nomination is improper, illegal and is liable to be set aside. This Court cannot interfere with such a decision of the Court below as an appellate Court. Having considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no scope of interfering with the order. Accordingly, declining the jurisdiction, the above original petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the Election Commission to fix a new schedule for completing the exercise, based on the original notification, from the stage where it was stopped, accepting the nomination of such candidates in terms of the impugned order.