JUDGMENT : Murali Purushothaman, J. The petitioners who are devotees of Ambalappuzha Sree Krishna Swami temple (hereinafter referred to as the 'temple') have approached this Court challenging the extension of the period of the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of the temple by the Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. As per the bye laws for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board approved by this Court, the term of office of the said Committees is for a period of 2 years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. The TAC of the temple was granted approval by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner w.e.f. 27.02.2019 and the term of the TAC was up to 27.02.2021. 3. According to the petitioners, there were complaints against the functioning of the TAC. The present TAC submitted application for extension of their period before the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner on 25.01.2021. The extension of term was sought for by the TAC on the ground that, though the work on the western entrance of the temple and the adjoining gates have been completed by the TAC, they want to make the pavement of tiles at the entrance gate more attractive. They sought for extension of term of the TAC by two years. 4. The petitioners submitted Ext.P2 complaint dated 27.01.2021 before the 4th respondent Administrative Officer of the temple, requesting not to extend the term of the present TAC. On the report called for on the request for extension of term, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner submitted Ext.P4 report to the Devaswom Commissioner stating that the construction of the Gopuram Vathil has been completed by the present TAC satisfactorily and that no works are pending to be completed by the TAC. In Ext.P4 report, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner observed that complaints are received against the present TAC with regard to the construction of the Gopuram Vathil, but the allegation levelled against the TAC could not be substantiated by the complainants with clear evidence. 5. On the basis of the report of respondents 2 to 4, the 1st respondent Board issued Ext.P5 order extending the period of the TAC by one year. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the term of the present TAC is extended by one year for the purpose of completion of the 'Gopuram Vathil' of the temple. 5. On the basis of the report of respondents 2 to 4, the 1st respondent Board issued Ext.P5 order extending the period of the TAC by one year. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the term of the present TAC is extended by one year for the purpose of completion of the 'Gopuram Vathil' of the temple. It is challenging Ext.P5 that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above writ petition. 6. The petitioners contend that the construction of the 'Gopuram Vathil' was completed and it was opened on 10.01.2021 by the President of the Board in the presence of other Board members, Devaswom authorities and TAC members and therefore, the reason stated in Ext. P5 for extension of the period of TAC is absolutely baseless and is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also refer to Ext.P6 information furnished to the third petitioner by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner under the Right to Information Act which states that no developmental activity or work is pending to be done by the TAC in the temple. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent Board issued Ext.P11 proceedings withdrawing Ext.P5 communication and extending the term of the TAC by one year stating that the Board does not find any reason to reject the request of the present TAC for extension of period to complete the ancillary development works in the temple. 8. The petitioners have amended the writ petition incorporating pleadings challenging Ext. P11. The petitioners contend that there is no development activity or any work pending to be carried out by the present TAC in the temple and that when the Board found the reason in Ext. P5 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, the same was substituted with another reason, which is equally unsustainable and issued on extraneous considerations. 9. P11. The petitioners contend that there is no development activity or any work pending to be carried out by the present TAC in the temple and that when the Board found the reason in Ext. P5 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, the same was substituted with another reason, which is equally unsustainable and issued on extraneous considerations. 9. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 wherein it is stated that the present TAC submitted a request to the Devaswom Commissioner stating that the work on the western entrance of the temple and adjoining gates had been completed under the leadership of the TAC and they want to make the pavement of tiles more attractive and therefore the term of TAC may be extended for two years and since the report of the Administrative officer and the Assistant Commissioner called for were contradictory, the matter was submitted to the Board for decision and the Board found that the report of the Assistant Commissioner does not contain any explicit allegation against the present committee and the report shows that the functioning of the TAC has gone smoothly and they have carried out the construction of Gopuram Vathil satisfactorily and the Board does not find it reasonable to reject the request of the TAC for an extension. It is stated that Ext. P5 was withdrawn and Ext. P11 was issued as the Board decision in its meeting dated 19.02.2021 was not correctly communicated in Ext. P5. The counter affidavit further states that the Board has the exclusive power under the bye laws to take decision regarding extension of term of temple advisory committees and in view of Covid -19 pandemic it is not possible to conduct election to form committees and the Board has taken a general view to extend the term of advisory committees which are free from allegations and the petitioners have no authority to interfere with the decision of the Board in terms of the bye laws approved by this court. They also denied the allegation raised by the petitioners that the decision to extend the term is vitiated by extraneous factors. 10. Heard Sri K. Sasikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.S. Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the TAC, Sri G.Santhosh Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4. 11. They also denied the allegation raised by the petitioners that the decision to extend the term is vitiated by extraneous factors. 10. Heard Sri K. Sasikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.S. Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel for the TAC, Sri G.Santhosh Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4. 11. With the insertion of Section 31 A to the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Amendment Act 5 of 2007), the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples has become statutory. The Board, in exercise of the rule making power under Section 35 (2) (a) of the Act, has framed rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under Travancore Devaswom Board and this Court by order dated 03-11-2011 in DBA No. 153/2009 has approved the draft bye laws. As per clause 11 of the approved bye laws, the term of office of the Temple Advisory Committee shall be 2 years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner. However, the Devaswom Commissioner has the authority to extend the term of the committee by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board will have the power to extend the term by a further period of one year. The term shall not to be extended beyond the period of two years. Thus, the term of the committees is statutorily fixed. The term can be extended by one year or up to two years under certain unavoidable circumstances and no longer. 12. The reason stated by the TAC in their request for extending the term, which was allowed by the Board for a period of one year is that, the work on the western entrance of the temple and adjoining gates had been completed and they now want to make the pavement of tiles more attractive. The pavement of tiles cannot be construed as a development work which requires the extension of term of the Temple Advisory Committee. The said work can also be done by the succeeding committee. The fact that the present TAC has completed the work of 'Gopuram Vathil' satisfactorily and that the report of the Assistant Commissioner does not contain any explicit allegations against the present TAC are also not factors to extend the term of the TAC. The said work can also be done by the succeeding committee. The fact that the present TAC has completed the work of 'Gopuram Vathil' satisfactorily and that the report of the Assistant Commissioner does not contain any explicit allegations against the present TAC are also not factors to extend the term of the TAC. The development works referred to in clause 11 of the bye laws are such major works in the temple which have to go on without break and a change of Temple Advisory Committee during such work shall not affect the progress of the work. Though we do not want to enumerate as to what are the developmental works in a temple which permit the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committees, which has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case, we have no hesitation to hold that the work of paving tiles at the entrance of the temple cannot be a reason for extension of term of the present TAC. The object of providing duration of office of Temple Advisory Committees in the approved bye laws is to see that timely elections are held and the constitution of the Committees are not delayed. The power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee which is fixed as per the approved bye laws shall not be exercised as a matter of course. They shall call for report regarding the developmental works going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple concerned and apply their mind to the materials and form a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not. 13. The reasons stated in Ext. P11 to extend the term of the TAC by the Board are not plausible or reasonable. Accordingly, we set aside Ext. P11 proceedings of the 1st respondent Board extending the term of the 5th respondent TAC. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take steps to conduct election to the TAC of the temple in accordance with the provisions of clause 5 of the approved bye laws of the Board expeditiously as and when the situation becomes conducive for the conduct of election following the Covid-19 protocols, if any, issued by the Government. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take steps to conduct election to the TAC of the temple in accordance with the provisions of clause 5 of the approved bye laws of the Board expeditiously as and when the situation becomes conducive for the conduct of election following the Covid-19 protocols, if any, issued by the Government. Till election is held and the approved by the Devaswom Commissioner in terms of clause 8 of the approved bye laws, the respondents 1 to 3 shall constitute an adhoc Temple Advisory Committee for the temple from among the members. Needless to say that the composition of such adhoc committee shall not be with persons who are members of the outgoing TAC. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.