JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner, which is stated to be the Temple Advisory Committee of the “Omallur Rakthakandaswamy Temple” assails Ext.P14 order of the 2 nd respondent the Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board (Commissioner), suspending them pending an enquiry. 2. Sri. C.S. Manilal - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Ext.P6 Bye-Laws governing the constitution and working of the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC), does not permit the interim suspension of any such Committee, though conceding that power has been vested with the 2 nd respondent to terminate them after proper enquiry. He argued that Ext.P14, however, has been issued without any enquiry having been completed and based merely on speculations and conjectures and hence that it is liable to be set aside. He concluded, asserting that, had his client been asked about the true facts before Ext.P14 had been issued, they would have explained that all allegations against them are untenable and contrary to facts. 3. Sri. Santhosh Kumar - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), in response, submitted that Ext.P14 was issued after an enquiry was conducted by his client through the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, which has confirmed various deleterious activities in the Temple, contrary to religious practices. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed; however, adding that his client intends to hear the petitioner quickly and to take a decision on the continuance of suspension or otherwise, which he said will be done not later than ten days from today. 4. We propose to be cautious in what we say further because, the question whether Ext.P6 Bye-Laws provides for an interim suspension of the “TAC” or otherwise, is an issue that may require to be considered, however, only after the 2 nd respondent-Commissioner takes a decision whether such a course is necessary in this case. 5. We propose to accede to the suggestion of Sri. Santhosh Kumar that the 2 nd respondent-Commissioner will hear the petitioner, based on their objections to Ext.P14 and that, for such purpose, the same will be treated only as a show cause notice, so that all relevant aspects can be considered and a final decision taken. 6. There can be little doubt that religious places are to be used for such purposes and nothing else. 6. There can be little doubt that religious places are to be used for such purposes and nothing else. Any colourable action otherwise, would erode the trust of the people and their beliefs and practices. However, any legal action on an allegation of its breach certainly requires to align with the prescribed and established process of law. 7. In the case at hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner - apart from their contention that a temporary suspension is not possible as per the Bye-Laws - that they have not been even issued with a notice to explain why Ext.P14 should not be issued. They also have a contention as argued by Sri. C.S. Manilal, that the alleged report of the Vigilance has not been made available to them. 8. In the afore circumstances, we deem it apposite to allow this writ petition with the following directions: (a) We record the submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar that the 2 nd respondent-Commissioner will issue a notice to the petitioner within the next two days. (b) On such notice being issued, the 2 nd respondent -Commissioner will hear the petitioner and take a final decision as to the continuation or otherwise of Ext.P14 order; and we clarify that, for this purpose, the said order will be construed as a show cause notice. This shall be done within a period of ten days from today, as undertaken by Sri. Santhosh Kumar on behalf of the 2 nd respondent and we, further order that if this is not done and the resultant order not communicated to the petitioner within the above said time limit, Ext.P14 will continue to be inoperative after it. 9. After we dictated this part of the judgment, Sri. C.S. Manilal interjected to say that, even the afore exercise would be of no purpose, because the President of the Board has already come out on record publically, through Ext.P12 press release, that his client will be terminated. 10. We do not propose to speak on this allegation at this stage because, Ext.P12 is a report, which remains unverified as of now. However, it would be certainly apposite for all Authorities concerned not to make disclosures unmindful of the statutory scheme. 11. 10. We do not propose to speak on this allegation at this stage because, Ext.P12 is a report, which remains unverified as of now. However, it would be certainly apposite for all Authorities concerned not to make disclosures unmindful of the statutory scheme. 11. That said, it is not necessary for us to enter into any kind of notion, that the exercise we have ordered above would not be done dispassionately by either the Commissioner, or even by the Board in due course.