JUDGMENT : K. Narendran, J The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 tender notification dated 10.12.2021 issued by the Administrator of the 2nd respondent-Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee regarding the auction of a Mahindra Thar Jeep bearing registration No.KL-46/V-9454, an offering by the 4th respondent, to Lord Guruvayurappan, the minor deity of Guruvayur Temple. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to auction Mahindra Thar Jeep bearing registration No.KL-46/V-9454. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition the 4th respondent herein, who is the Chairman of Mahindra Group, offered a Mahindra Thar Jeep to Lord Guruvayurappan on 08.12.2021. The Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee published Ext.P1 auction notice on the official website of Guruvayur Devaswom, on 10.12.2021, regarding the sale of that vehicle. As per Ext.P1 auction notice dated 10.12.2021, the bidders are required to remit Rs.40,000/- as earnest money deposit (EMD). The successful bidder has to remit 50% of the bid amount, on the date of the auction itself, and the balance amount within a period of three days from the date of confirmation. He has also to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the rate of 18% for the bid amount. The auction will be confirmed in the name of the successful bidder only after the approval is granted by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. Thereafter, the documents relating to the vehicle will be handed over to the successful bidder. On effecting transfer of ownership, the successful bidder will be permitted to take possession of the vehicle. As per Ext.P1 auction notice, the Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee shall have absolute discretion either to accept the bid, adjourn the auction or cancel the auction. In the auction conducted on 18.12.2021, a representative of the 5th respondent alone participated, who quoted an amount of Rs.15,10,000/-, as against the upset price of Rs.15,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the auction conducted on 18.12.2021 is absolutely illegal. The auction was conducted on the ground that the Devaswom cannot use an off-road vehicle for daily use, which is absolutely incorrect. According to the petitioner, the auction conducted on 18.12.2021 is absolutely illegal. The auction was conducted on the ground that the Devaswom cannot use an off-road vehicle for daily use, which is absolutely incorrect. Moreover, the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent for conducting the auction was in clear violation of the provisions under Section 11 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, and also Rule 12 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980. Along with the writ petition the petitioner has produced Exts.P2 and P3 news reports that appeared on 21.12.2021, Ext.P4 registration particulars of the vehicle in question, and also Ext.P5 information collected from Wikipedia on off-road vehicles. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a copy of an application made by one Sreenath Padmanabhan, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Public Information Officer in Guruvayur Devaswom for obtaining copy of the documents relating to the auction conducted on 18.12.2021. 3. On 06.01.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court has recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee that the 3rd respondent-Commissioner, Guruvayur Devaswom, is yet to accord sanction for the sale of Mahindra Thar Jeep and the vehicle is still in the custody of the Managing Committee. 4. On 07.01.2022, this Court admitted the writ petition on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee took notice for the 2nd respondent. Notice to the 4th respondent was dispensed with, for the time being, and urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 5th respondent, returnable within two weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to file counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent-Commissioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee sought time to file counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. 5. On 18.01.2022, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(q) documents. On 18.02.2022, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 23.02.2022, along with I.A No.2 of 2022, the petitioner has produced Exts.P7 and P8 as additional documents. On 18.02.2022, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 23.02.2022, along with I.A No.2 of 2022, the petitioner has produced Exts.P7 and P8 as additional documents. The document marked as Ext.P7 is a copy of application dated 03.01.2022 made by one of the members of the petitioner Trust, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for obtaining copy of the entire proceedings in relation to the auction conducted on 18.12.2021. The document marked as Ext.P8 is the copy of the entire proceedings obtained in relation to the said auction, obtained from the State Public Information Officer in Guruvayur Devaswom. On 08.03.2022, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. On 21.03.2022, the respondent has filed an additional affidavit, producing therewith Exts.R2(h) to R2(n) documents. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 7. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is that, the 4th respondent offered a Mahindra Thar vehicle to Lord Guruvayurappan and Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee accepted that offer on 09.10.2020. Necessary documents were given to the 4th respondent for registration of the vehicle. The registration process was completed on 12.02.2021, as evidenced by Ext.R2(a) Certificate of Registration. On account of Covid-19 pandemic there occurred a delay in effecting delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered on 04.12.2021, along with registration papers. The billing price and the price of the vehicle at the time of delivery were communicated to the 2nd respondent, vide Ext.R2(b) e-mail dated 20.12.2021. After delivery of the vehicle, the matter was placed before Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. The Committee, vide Ext.R2(c) resolution No.4 dated 09.12.2021, resolved to conduct a public auction of the vehicle, on 18.12.2021, fixing the upset price as Rs.15,00,000/-and to approach the 3rd respondent Commissioner for according sanction for conduct of the auction. Based on the said decision, Ext.P1 auction notice was published on 10.12.2021 and Ext.R2(d) request was made before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, seeking permission to conduct an auction on 18.12.2021, fixing Rs.15,00,000/-as the upset price. Based on the said decision, Ext.P1 auction notice was published on 10.12.2021 and Ext.R2(d) request was made before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, seeking permission to conduct an auction on 18.12.2021, fixing Rs.15,00,000/-as the upset price. The auction was conducted on 18.12.2021, as resolved in Ext.R2(c), in which only the representative of the 5th respondent participated by remitting Rs.40,000/-, who quoted Rs.15,10,000/-. Since there were no other bidders, the auction was provisionally confirmed in the name of the 5th respondent, subject to confirmation by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. When the matter was placed before the Managing Committee, the Committee vide Ext.R2(e) resolution No.14 dated 21.12.2021 confirmed the auction in favour of the 5th respondent, subject to sanction from the 3rd respondent, on the ground that confirmation of the auction will be beneficial to the interest of the Devaswom. Based on Ext.R2(e) resolution, Ext.R2(f) request dated 21.12.2021 was submitted before the rd respondent for according sanction for the auction sale of the vehicle conducted on 18.12.2021. The 3rd respondent has not accorded sanction for the confirmation of auction in favour of the 5th respondent. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, the auction conducted on 18.12.2021 can only be considered as a step taken by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to ascertain the best price the vehicle would fetch on auction, so that the 3rd respondent can take a considered decision as to whether sanction can be accorded in terms of Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act. The vehicle is kept in the custody of the 2nd respondent as the sale has not been concluded. The 2nd respondent has produced Ext.R2(g) price list of New Mahindra Thar vehicle for the month January, 2022 in order to point out that the ‘on road’ price of Mahindra Thar AX AC D MT 4WD 6S ST vehicle including roadside assistance and extended warranty is Rs.14,72,125/-, which is less than Rs.15,00,000/-. 8. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent is that, on the auction of Mahindra Thar vehicle conducted on 18.12.2021, the Commissioner called for an explanation from the Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, vide Ext.R3(a) letter dated 18.01.2022, since on examining the proposal made in Ext.R2(d) request dated 10.12.2021 and Ext.R2(f) request dated 21.12.2021 the Commissioner observed that undue haste has occurred in deciding on the auction soon after the receipt of the vehicle. As per the existing Government Rules, when there was only a single tender, a re-tender has to be invited, which has not been followed. Therefore, the Commissioner has called for various clarifications from the Administrator. The Commissioner has also called for a report from the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Guruvayur. The Administrator submitted explanations/ clarifications vide Ext.R3(b) letter dated 19.01.2022 and the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Guruvayur, submitted a report, vide Ext.R3(c) communication dated 27.01.2022. The sale of the vehicle has not been completed so far and it is still in the possession of Guruvayur Devaswom. Though the vehicle was registered on 12.02.2021, the delivery was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and finally the vehicle was handed over to Guruvayur Devaswom only on 04.12.2021. After delivery, the 2nd respondent noticed that the vehicle is an off-road vehicle, which is having only one seat in the front, apart from the driver's seat, and the rest of the seats are side facing, which would not be suitable for convenient use. On a comparative evaluation the 2nd respondent found that, in the event of the sale of the vehicle for a higher amount, the amount can be utilised for any other purpose which is more beneficial for Guruvayur Temple. As on the date of registration, the ex-showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.10,92,331/-and its on-road price as on the date of registration was Rs.13,33,522/-. As per Ext.R3(d) e-mail dated 20.12.2021, ex-showroom price of the vehicle as on 20.12.2021 was Rs.11,73,680/-and its on-road price as on 20.12.2021 was Rs.14,29,459/-. As per Ext.R3(c) report of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Guruvayur, the homologation price of the vehicle is only Rs.11,05,337/. An amount of Rs.1,43,694/-has been collected as motor vehicles tax at the rate of 13% on the ex-showroom price of the vehicle. Rs.100/-has been collected as one-time cess and Rs.755/- as registration fee. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the upset price of Rs.15,00,000/-fixed by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is higher than the actual price of the vehicle and any price equal to or above the upset price is beneficial to the Devaswom. The successful bidder had to pay all the other taxes and charges to change the ownership of the vehicle to his name. The 2020 model Mahindra Thar vehicle, which was registered on 12.02.2021, was delivered to Guruvayur Devaswom only on 04.12.2021. The successful bidder had to pay all the other taxes and charges to change the ownership of the vehicle to his name. The 2020 model Mahindra Thar vehicle, which was registered on 12.02.2021, was delivered to Guruvayur Devaswom only on 04.12.2021. The Managing Committee decided to conduct a public auction for the sale of Mahindra Thar vehicle as there were hardly 27 days left for the year to close. The information regarding the auction was widely published through Desabhimani daily, notice boards kept at various places in Guruvayur Temple, and also through facebook page and website of Guruvayur Devaswom. The Administrator, vide Ext.R2(d) request dated 10.12.2021, sought permission from the Commissioner for the auction of Mahindra Thar vehicle, prior to the conduct of the auction. According to the 3rd respondent, though there was haste in conducting the auction and finalisation of a single bidder without resorting to re-tender is not fully justifiable, there is no need to cancel the single tender, since the off-road vehicle is not beneficial to the Devaswom and the proceeds from the auction could be used for much more beneficial use. Moreover, now there is a firm buyer who quoted a price more than that of the upset price fixed by the Devaswom. In view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act the Commissioner intends to publish a notice inviting objections and suggestions from persons having interest in Guruvayur Temple. The Commissioner will take a decision on the matter, after considering such objections and suggestions from persons, after observing the procedural formalities, without any delay. Therefore, the 3rd respondent Commissioner seeks permission from this Court to proceed with the matter further in terms of the provisions under Section 11 of the Act. 9. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent is that, sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act does not mandate prior sanction for the acts of alienation done by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 11 provides that the Commissioner shall publish the particulars relating to the proposed in such a manner as may be prescribed inviting objections and suggestions and the Commissioner is vested with the responsibility to consider all such objections. Hence there should be a ‘proposed’ transaction and the auction proceedings is such a ‘proposed’ transaction as mandated by Section 11 of the Act. Hence there should be a ‘proposed’ transaction and the auction proceedings is such a ‘proposed’ transaction as mandated by Section 11 of the Act. The 5th respondent is a bona fide auction purchaser, who had participated in the auction as the vehicle is owned by Lord Guruvayurappan. If it was owned by a private individual he will never care to participate in it. The 5th respondent has to spend altogether Rs.18,00,000/-including 18% GST, in case he is declared as the successful bidder. He may be permitted to remit balance amount and take delivery of the vehicle. 10. In the additional affidavit filed by the Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee it is stated that, the Administrator has only performed acts which were specifically directed to be performed by the Managing Committee. As per Ext.R2(c) resolution, the upset price of the vehicle was fixed by the Managing Committee as Rs.15,00,000/-and it was decided to conduct the auction after giving wide publicity. Accordingly, Ext.R2(h) tender notice was published in the notice board of Guruvayur Devaswom. The tender notice was also published in Deshabhimani daily, Thrissur Edition, which has approximately 65,000 subscribers. Further, the Public Relations Officer has issued Ext.R2(i) press release. The Public Relations Officer sent emails to all the leading newspapers regarding the auction of the vehicle. Accordingly, the news relating to the auction was published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 10.12.2021 [Ext.R(j)], Malayala Manorama daily dated 10.02.2021 [Ext.R2(k)], Mangalam daily dated 10.12.2021 [Ext.R2(l)], Janayugam daily dated 10.12.2021 [Ext.R2(m)], and Deepika daily dated 10.12.2021 [Ext.R2(n)]. Besides, there was wide publicity on the social media and on several online news portals. The tender notice was published in the Facebook page as well as the website of Guruvayur Devaswom, which is accessed by a large number of people. As a result of this wide publicity the 5th respondent, who is residing at Edappally in Ernakulam District participated in the auction. All endeavours were made by the Administrator to ensure that wide publicity was given to the auction, without incurring any further expenditure as the upset price fixed was Rs.15,00,000/-. In the additional affidavit, it is stated that, the issue of re-tender does not arise as the auction was conducted only to ascertain the best price which the vehicle would fetch. All endeavours were made by the Administrator to ensure that wide publicity was given to the auction, without incurring any further expenditure as the upset price fixed was Rs.15,00,000/-. In the additional affidavit, it is stated that, the issue of re-tender does not arise as the auction was conducted only to ascertain the best price which the vehicle would fetch. The sale of the vehicle has not taken place, as alleged, which can be concluded only after complying with the procedure enumerated in Section 11 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, by the 3rd respondent Commissioner, who is yet to issue any orders either approving the auction or rejecting the same. The only apprehension is that, re-auction would fetch only a lesser price as the value of the vehicle would further decrease due to change in the year. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedure adopted by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee for conducting the auction sale of Mahindra Thar jeep, pursuant to Ext.P1 auction notice dated 10.12.2021 is per se arbitrary and illegal and it is in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and Rule 12 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Rules. 12. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee would contend that the auction sale conducted on 18.12.2021 is strictly in accordance with the provisions under Section 11 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and Rule 12 of Guruvayur Devaswom Rules. The Administrator of the Managing Committee has already submitted explanations/clarifications before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, as evidenced by Ext.R3(b) reply dated 19.01.2022, which is now pending consideration before the said respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 3rd respondent Commissioner is yet to take a decision on the matter, after publishing a notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act, inviting objections and suggestions from persons having interest in Guruvayur Temple, and thereafter, the Commissioner will take an appropriate decision after observing the procedural formalities. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would contend that the procedure adopted for conducting the auction sale on 18.12.2021 is not in violation of the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act. The 5th respondent is only a bona fide auction purchaser, who had participated in the auction as the vehicle is owned by Lord Guruvayurappan. The 5th respondent is only a bona fide auction purchaser, who had participated in the auction as the vehicle is owned by Lord Guruvayurappan. He may be permitted to remit the balance amount and take delivery of the vehicle. 13. The properties belonging to Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur, and the income derived therefrom, including the endowments and offerings are vested in the deity, Lord Guruvayurappan, a perpetual minor. A reading of the preamble of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 will clearly show that the authorities constituted under the said Act, especially the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, the Administrator and the Commissioner are enjoined with duty to administer, control and manage the affairs of the Temple, its properties and endowments. 14. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Administrator’ to mean the Administrator appointed under Section 14. Clause (b) of Section 2 defines ‘Commissioner’ as an officer not below the rank of Secretary to Government, who professes the Hindu Religion and believes in temple worship, appointed by the Government by notification in the Gazette. Clause (c) of Section 2 (c), ‘Committee’ means Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3. The function of the Committee is to administer, control and manage the Devaswom including its properties. 15. Section 4 of the Act deals with composition of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. As per Section 4(1), the Committee shall consist of the Zamorin Raja; the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri lllom at Guruvayoor; the Thanthri of the Temple, ex-officio; a representative of the employees of the Devaswom nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers; not more than five persons, of whom one shall be a member of a Scheduled Caste, nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers from among persons having interest in the Temple. 16. Section 10 of the Act deals with the duties of the Committee. 16. Section 10 of the Act deals with the duties of the Committee. As per Section 10(a), subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it shall be the duty of the Committee, subject to the custom and usage in the Temple, to arrange for the proper performance of the rites and ceremonies in the Temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto in accordance with the dittam or scale of expenditure fixed for the temple and the subordinate temples under Section 20 or, till the dittam or scale of expenditure is fixed under that Section, in accordance with the dittam or scale of expenditure fixed for the Temple and the subordinate temples under Section 51 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951; and as per Section 10(a), to provide facilities for the proper performance of worship by the worshippers. 17. In Bijesh Kumar M. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2021 (1) KHC 51 ] a Full Bench of this Court held that the role assigned to Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, is that of a trustee in management of the properties vested in the deity. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, which functions as a trustee, is bound to administer, control and manage the properties belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom in accordance with public interest and in the interest of the worshippers. As provided in Section 17, the Administrator shall function as the Secretary to Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and he shall be the Chief Executive Officer functioning subject to the control of the Committee. He is bound to carry out the decisions taken by Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 18. In Bijesh Kumar M. the Full Bench held that, all the properties, including movable and immovable properties and money, dedicated to or endowed in the name of Lord Guruvayurappan or any property acquired in any manner by Guruvayur Devaswom shall vest in the idol of Lord Guruvayurappan, consecrated in Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act is legally bound to administer, control and manage all the properties belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The Administrator and the Commissioner shall also function within the frame work of the statute. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act is legally bound to administer, control and manage all the properties belonging to Guruvayur Devaswom in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The Administrator and the Commissioner shall also function within the frame work of the statute. The legal status of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Act is that of a trustee in management of the Devaswom properties and the Committee is duty bound to scrupulously follow the stipulations contained in the Act of 1978. Unless a contrary intention, either expressly or by necessary implication, arises from the provisions of the statute in any particular subject or context, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is legally bound to administer and manage the Devaswom and its properties in accordance with the settled legal principles relating to the administration of Hindu Religious Trusts. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, being the trustee in management of Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties with utmost care and caution. In view of the settled legal principles that the trustees cannot delegate their powers and duties to any other person, the Full Bench held that Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee cannot delegate its powers, functions and duties under the Act to the State Government or any other entity. 19. Section 11 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 deals with alienation of Devaswom properties. As per subsection (1) of Section 11, no movable property of non-perishable nature which is in the possession of the Committee and the value of which is more than five thousand rupees and no jewelleries shall be sold, pledged or otherwise alienated unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom. As per sub-section (2) of Section 11, any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purposes of the Devaswom shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom. 20. As per sub-section (2) of Section 11, any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purposes of the Devaswom shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom. 20. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act provides that before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Commissioner shall publish the particulars relating to the proposed transaction in such manner as may be prescribed inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto and shall duly consider all objections and suggestions received from the Committee or other persons having interest in the Temple. As per sub-section (4) of Section 11, when according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Commissioner may impose such conditions and give such directions as he may deem necessary regarding the utilisation of the amount raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and, in the case of a mortgage, regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period. 21. As per sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act, a copy of the order made by the Commissioner shall be communicated to the Government and to the Committee and shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed. Subsection (6) of Section 11 prescribes that the Committee may, within three months from the date of receipt by it of a copy of the order, and any person having interest in the Temple may, within three months from the date of publication of the order, institute a suit in the Court to modify the order or set it aside. 22. As per sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no antiquity belonging to the Devaswom shall be sold, pledged or otherwise alienated. 22. As per sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no antiquity belonging to the Devaswom shall be sold, pledged or otherwise alienated. As per Explanation to sub-section (7) of Section 11, for the purposes of this sub-section, ‘antiquity’ shall mean (a)(i) any coin, sculpture, painting, epigraph or other work of art or craftsmanship; (ii) any article, object or thing detached from a building or cave; (iii) any article, object or thing illustrative of science, art, crafts, literature, religion, customs, morals or politics in bygone ages; (iv) any article, object or thing of historical interest, which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years; and (b) any manuscript, record or other document which is of scientific, historical, literary or aesthetic value and which has been in existence for not less than seventy-five years. 23. Section 28 of the Act provides that Committee to be in possession of Devaswom properties. As per sub-section (1) of Section 28, the Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties including jewelleries, records, documents and other assets belonging to the Devaswom. If in obtaining such possession, the Committee or any person authorised in this behalf by the Committee, or the Administrator is resisted or obstructed by anyone, the Committee or the Administrator, as the case may be, may make a requisition in the prescribed form to the Collector of the district in which any such property is situate to deliver possession thereof to the Committee or the Administrator, as the case may be. 24. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 and in supersession of the Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1971, the Government of Kerala made Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980. Rule 3 deals with power of the Committee over the actions of the Administrator. As per Rule 3, the Committee may call for and examine any record connected with any action of the Administrator and give such directions to him in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and Regulations made thereunder, as the Committee may consider necessary. Rule 4 provides that Administrator to carry out the decision of the Committee. As per Rule 4, the Administrator shall take steps to implement all the lawful decisions of the Committee. 25. Rule 4 provides that Administrator to carry out the decision of the Committee. As per Rule 4, the Administrator shall take steps to implement all the lawful decisions of the Committee. 25. Chapter VI of the Rules deals with custody of records and properties of the Devaswom. Rule 12 casts a duty on Administrator to maintain registers. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 12, the Administrator shall maintain necessary registers containing the particulars of jewels, gold and other valuables belonging to the Temple. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 12, the registers shall contain the correct description and full particulars of the jewels, gold, etc. and the weight of each of the jewels, and valuables. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, when any jewel or valuable is sold, exchanged or altered, an entry shall be made about it in the register and when any such jewel or valuable is substituted, a fresh entry shall be made in the register. 26. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 12, before according sanction for the alienation of any immovable property, the Commissioner, shall publish a notice showing details of the property so as to facilitate its identification, such as, District, Taluk, Village, survey number and extent. He shall also publish similar notice before according sanction for alienation of movable properties, showing details of such properties. The notices shall be published in the office of the Commissioner, the Guruvayur Devaswom Office and in respect of immovable properties, on the sites. As per sub-rule (5) of Rule 12, the Commissioner shall publish the order made by him under Section 11 in respect of alienation of any property in the office of the Guruvayur Devaswom. As per sub-rule (6) of Rule 12, the Committee shall conduct annual physical verification of movable properties of the Devaswom including jewel and gold and send a certificate to the effect, with remarks, if any, to the Commissioner, before the 30th June every year. 27. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. 27. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs.21,500/-on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500/-, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 28. In view of the provisions under Guruvayur Devaswom Act, the authorities constituted under the said Act, namely, the Managing Committee and the Administrator are enjoined with duty to administer, control and manage the affairs of Guruvayur Devaswom, its properties and endowments. The role assigned to the Managing Committee is that of a trustee in management of the properties vested in the deity. The role assigned to the Managing Committee is that of a trustee in management of the properties vested in the deity. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.V. Ramasubbiar [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], considering the fiduciary position as the trustee, it is the duty and obligation of the Managing Committee to be faithful to the Devaswom and deal with its properties, both movable and immovable, with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. The Commissioner and the Administrator shall also function within the frame work of the Statute. 29. In the matter of alienation of Devaswom properties, the Managing Committee and the Commissioner have to scrupulously follow the statutory mandate of Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act. Before according sanction for alienation of the properties, the Commissioner has to record his satisfaction that such alienation is necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom, as provided under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. Before according such sanction, the Commissioner has to follow the procedure prescribed under subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Act, by inviting objections and suggestions from the Managing Committee or persons having interest in Guruvayur Temple. It is also the duty of the Commissioner to consider all such objections and suggestions before according sanction for such alienation. As per the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 11, while according sanction for alienation, the Commissioner may impose such conditions and such directions as he may deem necessary regarding utilisation of the amount raised by such transaction, the investment thereof, etc. On a copy of the order made by the Commissioner communicated to the competent authorities and published in the manner prescribed, the Managing Committee or any persons having interest in Guruvayur Temple can institute a suit in the court to modify the order or set aside the same, as provided under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of Guruvayur Devaswom Rules prescribes the procedure that has to be followed by the Commissioner before according sanction for alienation of any movable or immovable properties. 30. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of Guruvayur Devaswom Rules prescribes the procedure that has to be followed by the Commissioner before according sanction for alienation of any movable or immovable properties. 30. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Commissioner is that, in view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act, the Commissioner intends to publish a notice inviting objections and suggestions from persons having interest in Guruvayur Temple on the sale of Mahindra Thar jeep. Thereafter, he will take a decision in that matter, after considering the objections and suggestions from such persons, observing all procedural formalities. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and also the 5th respondent can be raised before the 3rd respondent Commissioner, which shall be dealt with appropriately, before taking a decision in the matter. 31. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent Commissioner to consider the request made by the 2nd respondent Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee seeking sanction for the sale of Mahindra Thar jeep bearing registration No.KL-46/V-9454, and take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with the provisions under Section 11 of Guruvayur Devaswom Act read with Rule 12 of Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, the 5th respondent or any other person having interest in Guruvayur Temple, who submits objections or suggestions on publication of notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. While taking such a decision, the 3rd respondent Commissioner shall consider whether the procedure adopted by the Managing Committee while conducting the auction sale is in accordance with the provisions under Section 11 of the Act, whether such alienation is necessary or beneficial to the Devaswom, and if so, the manner in which such amount has to be utilised for the benefit of the Devaswom, namely, Guruvayur Devaswom. Considering the urgency of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent Commissioner to conduct a personal hearing for considering the objections or suggestions, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and take a decision on the request made by the 2nd respondent, within a further period of three weeks.