JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The administration of the Sree Tripuranthaka Devaswom, an ancient temple in the Malappuram District, has called into question certain issues of some portent in this writ petition. The hereditary trustee of the said Devaswom, the petitioner herein, alleges that proceedings are now being pursued by the Assistant Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to appoint Non-hereditary Trustees for administration of the temple and he imputes that such attempts are being made in a surreptitious manner, without him being kept informed. 2. The petitioner's assertion is that as per Exhibit P5 judgment, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an SLP filed against it, the second respondent is bound to consult him and to obtain his views with respect to the appointment of Non-hereditary Trustees in the temple. The petitioner says that the Devaswom is governed by Exhibit P4 scheme, which has obtained approval of the competent authorities in the year 2001 and he concedes that Exhibit P5 judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court permits appointment of Non-hereditary Trustees, but subject to certain conditions. We see that this judgment was delivered in a writ petition filed by the petitioner's predecessor in title who had claimed that as per the Scheme of Administrations, Nonhereditary Trustees are not required to be appointed. The petitioner admits that the ratio in Exhibit P5 judgment, which has now been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, is that Non-hereditary Trustees along with the Hereditary Trustees will be vested with the management of the Devaswom and the Temple. 3. The allegation of the petitioner, as we have already seen above, is that in spite of the binding directions in Exhibit P5 judgment, he has not been consulted by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner when the appointments to the post of Non-hereditary Trustees are now being finalized. According to him, going by the directions in Exhibit P5 judgment, it is an obligation on the part of the second respondent to do so and that any attempt to deviate therefrom is illegal and unlawful. On such assertion, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate direction to the second respondent to consult him at all stages of the selection process of Nonhereditary Trustees of the said temple. 4. On such assertion, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate direction to the second respondent to consult him at all stages of the selection process of Nonhereditary Trustees of the said temple. 4. We have heard Sri.Achuth Kylas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board. 5. The issues raised in this writ petition are, in our view, completely covered by Exhibit P5 judgment. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court had found that the administration of the Devaswom can be done only as per Exhibit P4 Scheme and that since the said Scheme is not under challenge, it has to be taken that the Scheme has found approval of all the parties concerned. After concluding so, the Division Bench went on to record that the Hereditary Trustee cannot be heard to say that he alone should be vested with the management of the Devaswom and that no Hereditary Trustee can be appointed because the Scheme mandates otherwise. After noticing the guidelines that were published by the then Commissioner of the HR & CE in consultation with the Government, this Court held in paragraph 26 of the said judgment held as under: “Even if section 39(2) of the Act is intended for appointment of non-hereditary trustees for the first time and for filling up subsequent vacancies, sub-section (5) will apply, even then the Commissioner has to record reasons. Having regard to the purpose for which the Area Committee constituted the Trustee Board for temples which do not come under A-schedule, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner should ascertain the view of the Hereditary Trustee or his fit person so that there will be smooth functioning of the temple. It does not mean that only persons approved by him can be nominated. But whenever consensus is possible it can be adopted. Where, however, the consensus is possible the Area Committee has to select more competent persons from out of the active devotees who have expressed their willingness to act as non-hereditary trustees. In O.P.No.6131 of 2003, a Division Bench of this Court has held that while nominating non-hereditary trustees, the Commissioner, H.R. & D.E. Has to make a comparative assessment of the qualifications of all the applicants which can be discernible from the files. In O.P.No.6131 of 2003, a Division Bench of this Court has held that while nominating non-hereditary trustees, the Commissioner, H.R. & D.E. Has to make a comparative assessment of the qualifications of all the applicants which can be discernible from the files. Since nothing is brought to our notice about such comparative assessment of applicants in this case, it is also another reason to set aside the appointment of the non-hereditary trustee of the temple. The present nomination is made even without complying with sub-section (5) of S.39 of the Act and without consultation of the hereditary trustee or the fit persons and active politician is included as non-hereditary trustee and that appointment has to be set aside and we do so.” Consequential orders were issued in the said judgment directing the authorities of the then HR & CE, which has now been taken over by the Malabar Devaswom Board, that all such appointments to the post of Non-hereditary Trustees should be in consultation with the Hereditary Trustee or the fit person, as the case may be and that if persons can be selected on consensus, it will be better for the smooth functioning of the temple administration. The Bench also declared that, if no consensus is possible, respondents 2 to 4, who were the competent officers of the HR & CE Department, are free to make appointments in accordance with the guidelines. The guidelines that were noticed by the Division Bench is contained in paragraph 22 of Exhibit P5 judgment, which reads as under: “The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., in consultation with the Government has framed guidelines for selection of nonhereditary trustees for the temples in the erstwhile Malabar area under the control of the H.R. & C.E. Department. The guidelines are as follows: “(a) An appointee shall be ordinarily a resident in the Taluk in which the temple is situated and for this purpose either his name in the electoral roll or address furnished in the ration card shall be the proof. (b) The appointee shall be a person who is in the habit of visiting the temple usually. (c) The appointee shall be a person believing in idol worship and persons who are actively working for the welfare of the temple/temples may be given preference. (d) The following category of persons need not be considered for appointment ordinarily. (i) Busy professionals. (b) The appointee shall be a person who is in the habit of visiting the temple usually. (c) The appointee shall be a person believing in idol worship and persons who are actively working for the welfare of the temple/temples may be given preference. (d) The following category of persons need not be considered for appointment ordinarily. (i) Busy professionals. (ii) Active politicians and office bearers of political parties. (iii) Persons who had encroached Devaswom lands or against whom Devaswom has filed cases in a court of law. (iv) Persons who had filed litigations against the Devaswom. (e) When the comparative merits and demerits are difficult to be decided as above, the educational qualification shall be taken as determinant factor. (f) While making appointment as far as possible, persons who can work as a team for the welfare and development activities of the temple shall be appointed.” A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.20092 of 2004 (Ext.P10) considered the validity of the guidelines approved by the Government and this Court also endorsed the view that the persons who are actively involved in politics and those who are office bearers of political parties are ordinarily not better suited to man the post of non-hereditary trustees. It was observed that the restrictions imposed by the Commissioner and the Government is in public interest and for the best interest of the administration of the temple. Politicians may spur trade unionism among the employees and political parties may have their own trade unions. Possibility of their influencing the temple employees with their policies and ideas would also lead to conflict of interest between the temple employees which is not conducive for the welfare of the temple. Attack to the guidelines on the basis of violation of Articles 19, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution were also rejected. This Court had also appointed a High power Committee consisting of the former Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Retired Secretary to Government of India and formerly Special Director of C.B.I. and a Chartered Accountant. That Committee filed a report stating that depoliticisation of the Board and its working is a matter of highest priority. This Court had also appointed a High power Committee consisting of the former Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Retired Secretary to Government of India and formerly Special Director of C.B.I. and a Chartered Accountant. That Committee filed a report stating that depoliticisation of the Board and its working is a matter of highest priority. That was in connection with the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards.” The effect of Exhibit P5 judgment, therefore, is indubitable that persons can be appointed to the post of Non-hereditary Trustees of the Devaswom by the second respondent provided the Hereditary Trustee is consulted and his views are obtained. The judgment, however, does not make it incumbent that only those persons who are approved by the Hereditary Trustee be appointed but that wherever possible, consensus be attempted and persons be appointed based on their relative merit and their credentials for being appointed to such vacancies. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before us today that the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court in this writ petition because the second respondent is now going on with the process of appointing Non-hereditary Trustees to the temple but he is refusing to make any consultation with him at any stage of such process. His essential contention is that, going by the rigor of the directions in Exhibit P5 judgment, the second respondent is bound to consult him at every stage. We are afraid that this submission of the learned counsel does not really find support in the specific directions contained in Exhibit P5. What is directed in Exhibit P5 is that the authorities should consult the Hereditary Trustee before persons are appointed as Nonhereditary Trustee and no more. Nowhere in Exhibit P5 is it mandated or prescribed that at every stage of the proceeding, leading to the final selection of Non-hereditary Trustees, should the Hereditary Trustees be consulted and the effect of the judgment can only be that the Hereditary Trustee be consulted at the time when the Non-hereditary Trustees are actually appointed. In other words, the process for identification and selection of candidates, who have applied to the post of Non-hereditary Trustees, can go on but that before they are actually appointed, the views of the hereditary trustee be obtained. The mandate in Exhibit P5 is nothing more and nothing less. 7. In other words, the process for identification and selection of candidates, who have applied to the post of Non-hereditary Trustees, can go on but that before they are actually appointed, the views of the hereditary trustee be obtained. The mandate in Exhibit P5 is nothing more and nothing less. 7. Viewed in the above perspective, we have to consider whether the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be granted, but by being suitably modulated to be in terms of Exhibit P5 judgment. It is obvious that the prayers made herein cannot be granted in the manner they have been made because the petitioner, who claims to be the Hereditary Trustee, requires that he be consulted at every stage. This, as we have already said above, is not necessary and going by the directions in Exhibit P5, the consultation that is required will only be at the time when the Non-hereditary Trustees are actually sought to be appointed. 8. The learned Standing Counsel informs us that the area committee in question has already completed the process for appointment to the posts of Non-hereditary Trustees and that they have identified them. He says that it is not necessary, going by the prescriptions of Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 ('the Act' for brevity), to obtain the concurrence of the Hereditary Trustee. His contention is that it is the jurisdiction of the competent authorities, acting under the said Section, to appoint the Non-hereditary Trustees in the manner that is postulated therein. He points out that as per Section 39(2), consultation or notice to the Hereditary Trustee is required only when a non-Hereditary Trustee is sought to be appointed for the first time. He says that when a vacancy is sought to be filled up under the mandate of Section 39(5) no such consultation or notice is required. 9. The prescriptions in Section 39 and in particular, sub-clauses (2) and (5) therein, relate to the appointment of Non-hereditary Trustee/s by the Commissioner in certain specified situations. He says that when a vacancy is sought to be filled up under the mandate of Section 39(5) no such consultation or notice is required. 9. The prescriptions in Section 39 and in particular, sub-clauses (2) and (5) therein, relate to the appointment of Non-hereditary Trustee/s by the Commissioner in certain specified situations. The said provisions are extracted to aid reference as under: “39(2) -Where, in the case of any such institution having a hereditary trustee or trustees; the Commissioner after notice to such trustee or trustees, and after such enquiry as he deems adequate, considers for reasons to be recorded, that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees, the Commissioner may, by order appoint such Numbers of non-hereditary trustees as he thinks necessary, so however that the total number of trustees does not exceed five. 39(5) -Where a vacancy arises in the office of a nonhereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) the Commissioner shall not fill up such a vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do so. A non-hereditary trustee appointed in the vacancy shall be deemed to have been appointed under sub-section (2) and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly.” The Scheme of the Act is, therefore, clear that it is only if the Hereditary Trustee/Trustees is or are found to be maladroit or incompetent with respect to the affairs of the temple and if the Commissioner feels that the management of the Institution cannot be done without the appointment of the Non-hereditary Trustee/Trustees, that such appointment need be made under Section 39(2) afore extracted. In such an event, a notice is mandatorily provided to be served by the Commissioner to the Hereditary Trustee because a Non-hereditary Trustee/ Trustees is or are appointed for the first time. The filling up of subsequent vacancies to the position of Non-hereditary Trustees is regulated by sub-clause (5) of Section 39 of the Act. 10. A reading of the above provisions makes it without doubt that, statutorily, the Commissioner is not obligated to give notice to the Hereditary Trustee/Trustees when a subsequent vacancy arises in the Office of the Non-hereditary Trustee. The Commissioner is enjoined, as per sub-clause (5), not to fill up that vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do so. The Commissioner is enjoined, as per sub-clause (5), not to fill up that vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do so. Therefore, the Commissioner is to act when a need arises and if, in his opinion, which is to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary to do so. 11. This is not to say that when the Commissioner invokes his power under Section 39(5) that the Hereditary Trustee is completely divested of any say. The power vested with the Commissioner is to act fairly, judiciously and in a manner that behooves his office, being the seneschal of the various temples and institutions under his command. The power of the Commissioner being bridled by the section itself, not to act unless there is an imminent necessity to fill up the vacancies of Non-hereditary Trustee or Trustees and that too after recording such reasons in writing, show the implicit care to be invested while acting under its sanction. The vacancies are not to be filled under his whim or fancy but the Commissioner is clearly obligated to first conclude if it is necessary to do so, which can only mean to be a situation in which he thinks that the Hereditary Trustee will not be sufficient on his own to manage the affairs of the temple/ institution. The competence and capability of the Hereditary Trustee or Trustees thus becomes absolutely relevant and germane when vacancies are sought to be filled up in the posts of Non-hereditary Trustees under section 39(5) of the Act and, therefore, the issuance of a notice of such intention by the Commissioner to the Hereditary Trustees or Trustees, though not specifically mentioned in Section 39(5), will be apposite if not to be read into its provisions as a concomitant necessity to ensure fairness in procedure. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the Hereditary Trustee need not be consulted at all, while acting under Section 39(5), therefore, does not appear to be on terra firma forensically. 12. In any event of the matter, in the case at hand, these provisions cannot apply simplicitor. This is because, Exhibit P5 judgment covers the field and makes it incumbent upon the authorities to apply for the consultation of the hereditary trustee before the Non-hereditary Trustees are appointed. 12. In any event of the matter, in the case at hand, these provisions cannot apply simplicitor. This is because, Exhibit P5 judgment covers the field and makes it incumbent upon the authorities to apply for the consultation of the hereditary trustee before the Non-hereditary Trustees are appointed. In such view of the matter, the provisions of Section 39 would not apply in the manner as is stated therein but will have to be applied in modification, taking into account the directions contained in Exhibit P5 judgment. 13. That being said, it is obvious that in the case at hand the consultation of the Hereditary Trustee before the Non-hereditary Trustees are appointed is obligated and mandatory in terms of Exhibit P5 judgment. Since we are told the list of non-hereditary trustees have already been identified, it is indubitable that before they are actually appointed, the competent authorities are obligated to place it before the petitioner, who is the Hereditary Trustee of the temple, for his opinion and views in the matter. The petitioner will be enjoined to make his views in the matter known to the concerned authority in writing and the latter will, thereafter, make a decision, taking into account the opinion and the views of the petitioner, with respect to the appointment of the Nonhereditary Trustees now identified. This is the manner in which Exhibit P5 judgment will have to be operated. 14. In the upshot of the afore, we direct the second respondent to place the list of persons who are now identified to be appointed as Non-hereditary Trustees, along with a concise statement as to the credentials and qualifications of each of such persons, before the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall, on receipt of the said communication from the second respondent, offer his opinion and views with respect to each of the candidates shown in the list and forward it to the Assistant Commissioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall, on receipt of the said communication from the second respondent, offer his opinion and views with respect to each of the candidates shown in the list and forward it to the Assistant Commissioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. If the views and opinion of the petitioner is so made available to the Assistant Commissioner within the time granted herein, he shall consider the same and take a final decision thereon, going by the guidelines mentioned above and as noticed in Exhibit P5 judgment and in terms of the various provisions of Act, as expeditiously as possible and without any further avoidable delay. Needless to say, the rights of the petitioner to cause a challenge to any such proceedings under the provisions of Section 39 or such other provisions of the Act would be available to him, which he may, if he so advised, invoke in terms of law. The writ petition is thus ordered.