JUDGMENT Krishna S. Dixit, J. - Petitioner claiming to be a hereditary trustee by succession to the temple in question, is complaining in writ jurisdiction against the Resolution dated 21.01.2020 vide Agenda No.17 passed by the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat at Annexure-AA, whereby the said issue has been referred for statutory adjudication. The impugned part of the resolution reads as under: 2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent-Parishat & the 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana have entered appearance through their Panel Counsel; the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and the 3rd respondent-State are represented by the learned AGA; respondent Nos.4 & 5 are ably represented by their private advocate; notice to 8th respondent who happened to be the incumbent of the office of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, was dispensed with vide order dated 14.10.2020. The contesting parties i.e., the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have filed their Statement of Objections on 21.01.2022. The petition is resisted with submissions made in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) The net effect of the impugned order is to put the issue of claim of the petitioner to hereditary trusteeship of the temple in question for consideration at the hands of 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana which is the judicial organ of the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat at the instance of the contesting respondents herein who are only the devotees and not the rival claimants qua the petitioner. Therefore, they had no locus standi to seek such a reference contending that administration of the temple in question was in a bad shape and there was misappropriation of funds of the temple. The claim for better administration of the temple is one thing and the claim for the hereditary trusteeship of the temple is another. This difference which the law recognizes having been casually ignored by the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat, there is an error apparent on the face of record, warranting invalidation of the impugned order. The claim for better administration of the temple is one thing and the claim for the hereditary trusteeship of the temple is another. This difference which the law recognizes having been casually ignored by the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat, there is an error apparent on the face of record, warranting invalidation of the impugned order. The vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties i.e., respondent Nos.4 & 5 that his clients being devotees of the temple have a vested interest in having due adjudication of the claim for hereditary trusteeship of the petitioner at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana in terms of the impugned resolution of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, is bit difficult to countenance. A devotee may arguably have a vested interest in the performance of rituals as per the Aagamas applicable to the temples in question. However, this court is not sure whether they can have the locus or locum in disputes of the kind. (b) There is yet another aspect to the so called dispute in question. The respondent-Commissioner in W.P.No.18035/2011 which is already mentioned above, had filed the Statement of Objections wherein it was specifically stated at para 9 as under: 'The contention of the petitioner that the dispute of succession to hereditary trusteeship is ot maintainable before the authorities and the same has to be agitated before the civil court etc., as the petitioner is not a member of Kodetthurugutthu family, he has no locus-standi to file objection for the succession by the members of Kodetthurugutthe family. Hence, the 1st respondent has rightly passed order for succession of the 2nd respondent as hereditary trustee of the temple as the petitioner does not belong to Kodetthurugutthu family.' The above stand of the Commissioner come to the aid of petitioner herein in the light of the observations of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 3.5.2016 supra, whereby the said Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the said contention. (c) There is force in the contention of learned Sr. (c) There is force in the contention of learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in the text & context of section 20A(1)(d) read with its sub-section (2)(iv)(vii) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, the question as to whether the petitioner is a hereditary trustee of the temple or not, could not have been referred to the 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana, when the same issue is being debated between the parties in a civil suit in O.S.No.65/2020 pending on the file of a civil court in Mangalore. Such a contention is supported by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court in M.F.A.No.7470/2018 (GM-RES) between M.Sunil Hegde vs. State and Others, disposed off on 22.2.2019. The learned Coordinate Judge having scanned various provisions of 1997 Act has observed at para 14 as under: '...this court is of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide questions relating to the rights to the office of Hereditary Trustee of a Family Temple is not absolutely excluded under section 63 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions And Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 even after... Amendment Act 2011, and the Dharmika Parishat would only resolve a dispute, which is in the nature of an in praesenti dispute as to who holds or held the office of the hereditary trustee as against the larger question as to who could succeed to the office of the Hereditary Trustee in terms of the applicable personal law. This larger question will have to be essentially decided by a civil court... ' (d) The petitioner is also justified in contending that merely because someone not connected with the office of the hereditary trust is raising a hue & cry as to a particular person assuming such an office, the same does not partake the character of a dispute meriting adjudication at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana of Rajya Dharmika Parishat. ' (d) The petitioner is also justified in contending that merely because someone not connected with the office of the hereditary trust is raising a hue & cry as to a particular person assuming such an office, the same does not partake the character of a dispute meriting adjudication at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana of Rajya Dharmika Parishat. A Coordinate Bench of this court in an earlier round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.18835/2011 between 6th respondent-Jayaram Alva (now deleted because of death) & one Dr.K. Ravindranath Poojna under whom the petitioner is claiming lineage by virtue of Aliya Santana customary law, disposed off on 6.5.2016, had observed as under: 'It cannot be that each time a hereditary trustee, demits office or dies while in office, the next senior most member, who may indisputably be the next legal heir to the trusteeship should be driven to a civil court, merely because a stranger or even a relative, though not claiming under the last trustee, asserts his claim to hereditary trusteeship...the only remedy of the petitioner is to firstly establish that he belongs to Kodethur Gothu family and that the hereditary trusteeship has been illegally usurped by the second respondent and his ancestors over the previous century and beyond...' (e) It is true that in the connected W.P. No. 50027/2019, the order appointing the Administrator to the temple in question was put in challenge and the same has been disposed off keeping the said appointment in abeyance subject to result of this Writ Petition, although the said disposal was done on 20.9.2022 with consensus of the parties, subject to outcome of this Writ Petition. The proceedings that led to order of appointment of Administrator prima facie establish interference of the State Govt. although at the invitation of one of the members of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat with concurrence of a judicial member, more particularly in the light of the then election process to the State Legislature. The proceedings that led to order of appointment of Administrator prima facie establish interference of the State Govt. although at the invitation of one of the members of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat with concurrence of a judicial member, more particularly in the light of the then election process to the State Legislature. In fact, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12959/2017 C/w W.P.No.17921/2018 between the petitioner herein and inter alia one of the contesting respondents, decided on 11.02.2019 specifically observed at para 10 as under: 'If Section 29 of the Act as well as the complaint made by the 4th respondent is read, it is evident that the respondent No.4 has nowhere stated that the affairs of the temple are being mismanaged or its money has been misappropriated. In the resultant, it is evident that the condition precedent for appointment of an administrator has not been fulfilled. The impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.' That being the position, the appointment of the Administrator could not have been ordered at all. This aspect has some relevance in the sense that even the said order was structured in an inarticulate premise that the issue now referred for adjudication was to be decided at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana, when law does not permit it for the reason already discussed above. (f) Lastly, law identifies a certain difference between hereditary trustees in a temple and ordinary trustees. The Apex Court in V.S.Thiagaraja Mudaliar vs. Bava C Chokkappa Mudaliar, (1974) 2 SCC 58 , had an occasion to consider this aspect of the matter in the light of the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 which have some pari materia elements with the corresponding provisions of 1997 Act; the Board constituted under the said Act can be likened to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or its Nyayadhikarana, constituted under the 1997 Act. What is observed also comes to the aid of petitioner herein who has staked his claim for hereditary trusteeship of the family temple in question. The same reads as under: 'These two definitions were advisedly introduced in the Act, because the Act wanted to make a clear distinction between a hereditary trustee and a non-hereditary trustee so far as the Hindu Religious endowments were concerned. The same reads as under: 'These two definitions were advisedly introduced in the Act, because the Act wanted to make a clear distinction between a hereditary trustee and a non-hereditary trustee so far as the Hindu Religious endowments were concerned. Non-hereditary trustees were subject to greater control by the Board under the Act, whereas the hereditary trustees enjoyed larger privileges and the control over them was also much less. It was, therefore, expected that when the Act came into force a trustee was likely to claim that he was a hereditary trustee and if such a dispute was raised that dispute was to be exclusively decided by the Board. In other words, if a trustee, as defined in the Act, wanted to claim that he is a hereditary trustee also as defined in the Act, it was necessary for him to approach the Board for a decision of the question and obtain a declaration that the office be held was not just of an ordinary trustee but a hereditary trustee. Such a dispute can never arise when it is conceded on all hands that the office is of a hereditary trustee. In the present case the whole question was as to who, out of a number of members of the Bava family, was entitled to succeed to the office of the hereditary trustee. Gopalaswami was not claiming a higher status than what he was holding. Either he was a hereditary trustee or nothing. In our opinion, the dispute raised by Gopalaswami before the Board was one which did not fall under Sub-clause (b) of Section 84(1) and, therefore, it was not a dispute which could be entertained by the Board.' 4. These observations lend credence to the contention of the petitioner side that the first respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat would not have passed the impugned resolution referring the issue to its Nyayadhikarana for adjudication at the instance of private respondents herein, who were only the devotees and who had not staked any counter claim for hereditary trusteeship. 5. These observations lend credence to the contention of the petitioner side that the first respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat would not have passed the impugned resolution referring the issue to its Nyayadhikarana for adjudication at the instance of private respondents herein, who were only the devotees and who had not staked any counter claim for hereditary trusteeship. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned part of the resolution i.e., Agenda No.17; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to treat the petitioner herein as a hereditary trustee of the temple in question subject to outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No.65/2020 wherein, it is open to the respondent Nos.4 & 5 to seek impleadment as parties or as interveners. All contentions in that regard are kept open. 6. Learned Trial Judge is requested to try & dispose off the subject suit within an outer limit of Seven months. Costs made easy.