JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge- I, Kollam, in IA Nos.57 to 60 /2025 in OS No.1 of 2006. 2. Heard, Adv. Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Adv. Kiranlal, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and Adv. Abdul Jawad K., learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by appointing the Administrator for conducting election and reporting to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10598-10599/2023 in civil appeal No.13708-13709/2024 dated 03.12.2024. Justice Ramakrishnan, a former Judge of this Court has been appointed for conducting election and the Hon'ble apex Court given liberty to the administrator to approach the District Court for any clarification. The draft schemes to be produced before the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, these petitioners said to be filed IA 57 to 60/2025, seeking permission of the Court for contesting the election, which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, petitioners approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the working committee has been dispelled the petitioners by meeting dated 07.04.2022 and prior to that the petitioners committee have expelled the present working committee vide meeting dated 25.12.2019. Subsequently, the petitioners were not permitted to contest the election. Therefore, the petitioners approached the civil Court for seeking permission to contest the election, but the Civil court dismissed the application, which is not correct. The Minutes of the meeting were not produced as directed by the Administrator by the present committee. Therefore the very expelling of the petitioners by a meeting dated 07.04.2022 is illegal and void ab-initio and therefore the petitioners cannot be disqualified for six years for conducting the elections. Such being the case, they might have permitted to contest the election which is not correct. Whereas, the civil Court observed the order that the administrator to take appropriate decision in the matter but the administrator also filed a review Petition before the Court the said review is still pending. Such being the case, they might have permitted to contest the election which is not correct. Whereas, the civil Court observed the order that the administrator to take appropriate decision in the matter but the administrator also filed a review Petition before the Court the said review is still pending. Such being the case there is no other option for the petitioners to approach this court for seeking permission to contest the election or directing the administrator to permit the petitioners to conduct the election and hence prayed for reliefs. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the2 nd respondent seriously objected the petition contending that the contention of the petitioners regarding allowing the respondent committee for holding election on 07.04.2022 has been challenged before this Court in RFA No.562/2010 filing IA No.7/2021 which came to be dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court. After the removal of the petitioners vide meeting dated 07.04.2022 has been notified to the petitioners by sending notices. Out of 11 members committee two persons have received notice, remaining persons have refused to receive the notices. However, they have approached this Court by filing I.A.No.7/2021 in RFA No.562/2010, which is nothing but consent to notice to them. They challenged the very allowing of the meeting by the Administrator on 07.04.2022 even they approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an SLP came to be dismissed. Thereafter they filed individual applications SLP No.6597/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were also dismissed. Such being the case, without challenging the resolution of the meeting or meeting dated 07.04.2022 which expelled the petitioners. They are indirectly approaching the Court for seeking permission to conduct the election, which is not permissible, which is nothing but a back door entry, therefore, filed this petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that even for the purpose of challenging the meeting dated 07.04.2022 the limitation already expired. Such being the case, they cannot seek leave of this Court for the purpose of filing the Suit which is not permissible. therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioners by his reply contended that though the petitioners chose wrong Forum by filing the IA on 15.02.2025. But that application is within the three years limitation. therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioners by his reply contended that though the petitioners chose wrong Forum by filing the IA on 15.02.2025. But that application is within the three years limitation. Therefore, liberty may be granted to the petitioners to approach the civil court for challenging the resolution dated 07.04.2022 for expelling the committee. Therefore, prayed to allow the reliefs. 8. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. The following points that arose for consideration:- i. Whether the order under challenge not permitting the petitioners to contest the election call for any interference? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for liberty as prayed for, challenging the resolution dated 07.04.2022? 9. On perusal of the records, which reveals that it is not in dispute that all the petitioners and respondents are parties to the earlier proceedings in RFA No.562/2010. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.13708- 13709/2024 appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) K. Ramakrishnan as the Administrator to conduct the election and report to the Hon'ble Supreme Court within four months and also liberty granted to the Administrator to approach the Civil Court for any clarifications and directions related to the conduct of election, administration and management of the subject temple and its institutions and also directed the trial court to pass the final decree by framing the scheme as expeditiously as possible as per the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court dated 03.12.2024. 10. Accordingly, before the trial court draft scheme has said to be produced and meanwhile as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the administrator proceeded to conduct the election and is preparing for conducting the election at this stage. This petitioners said to be earlier committee members who were said to be expelled by the resolution dated 07.04.2022 by the present executive working committee. They filed application, by IA Nos.57 – 60/2025 for seeking permission to contest the election, wherein the trial court dismissed the application. However, it was referred to the administrator to take call or consider the request of the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact, subsequently the administrator also filed a Review petition before the Civil Court for deleting the observation and directing the administrator to take decision in this matter. But the said Review Petition is still pending. By that time the petitioners approached this court. 11. It is also an admitted fact, subsequently the administrator also filed a Review petition before the Civil Court for deleting the observation and directing the administrator to take decision in this matter. But the said Review Petition is still pending. By that time the petitioners approached this court. 11. Considering all these aspects, it is not yet in dispute that the petitioners have been expelled by the present working committee by resolution or the meeting dated 07.04.2022 has not been challenged by the petitioners along with other two persons. Even though, the notices were served on them on 08.04.2022 itself and the remaining 9 persons have refused to receive the notice. However, altogether they approached the High Court in the first appeal, RFA No.562/2010 by filing application IA No.7/2021 by challenging the permission granted by the administrator to the working committee to hold the meeting on 07.04.2022. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by detailed order, wherein it is stated that the present working committee is said to be expelled by the petitioners committee on 25.12.2019 but there is no proper signatures of the members of the other committee. Therefore, the same was not accepted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. However, Hon'ble Court upheld the decision of the administrator, permitting the present committee for holding the meeting on 07.04.2022. 12. Admittedly, the petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court on IA No.7/2021. The petitioners filed an SLP, which has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2022. Thereby, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on IA No.7/2021 dated 25.03.2022 has been upheld. Another appeal filed by them individually also been dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to seek such other remedy available to the petitioners for expeditious framing of the scheme. Which shows that the application allowing the administrator for permitting the respondent committee for holding the meeting dated 07.04.2022 has been upheld. However, as on till date the petitioners have not challenged the resolution or expelling them on 07.04.2022 by moving the no- confidence motion. Which shows that the application allowing the administrator for permitting the respondent committee for holding the meeting dated 07.04.2022 has been upheld. However, as on till date the petitioners have not challenged the resolution or expelling them on 07.04.2022 by moving the no- confidence motion. Such being the case, the petitioners ought to have challenge the resolution dated 07.04.2022, expelling them from the committee before the appropriate civil court without filing the suit, approaching the civil court by filing the IA seeking permission of that court is correct and that court is only permitted to frame the scheme as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the duty of the administrator is to only conduct the election and report to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. Such being the case, the question of permitting the petitioners by the court below in OS No.1/2006 is not acceptable. However, though the trial court rightly dismissed the application IA 57/2025 to 60/2025 but the observation is that Administrator should take appropriate decision is also not correct. Since the Administrator has no authority to permit the expelled persons to contest the election in this matter. Such being the case, the administrator rightly filed Review Petition for removing that observation and direction issued to the administrator. Even otherwise the administrator has no authority to permit the petitioners to contest the election. Till the petitioners challenge the expellsion and meeting/resolution dated 07.04.2022 in the appropriate Civil Court. Such being the case, either this present trial court or the administrator cannot permit the petitioners for contesting the election as once they removed by way of expellsion by no - confidence motion they have become automatically disqualified as per law. Hence, they cannot contest election for six years. Such being the case question of permitting them to contest the election does not arises. Accordingly, I answered the point No.1 in favour of the respondent as against the petitioners. 14. As far as the liberty sought by the petitioners for filing the suit which challenging the resolution by expellsion dated 07.04.2022 though the petitioners were contended in impugned applications at para 13 stated that the expulsion dated 07.04.22 is illegal and ab initio, the Minutes book were not produced before the administrator etc. 14. As far as the liberty sought by the petitioners for filing the suit which challenging the resolution by expellsion dated 07.04.2022 though the petitioners were contended in impugned applications at para 13 stated that the expulsion dated 07.04.22 is illegal and ab initio, the Minutes book were not produced before the administrator etc. and it is contended by the learned counsel though they chosen wrong forum but they rightly challenged it by way of filing application, therefore a leave may be granted for filing a suit before the civil court. The said application was filed on 15.05.2022 which is within the time. Though the respondent counsel seriously objected for granting leave as challenging the resolution dated 07.04.2022 in which the limitation was already expired. However, the said contention already raised by the petitioners in some other wrong forum by filing applications instead of Suit. But they have not sought for declaration to set aside the said resolution as null and void and seeking permission to continue as a working committee member or contest the election. 15. However, the petitioners already approached the civil court by filing the applications instead of fling a suit is nothing but wrong forum. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the civil court, if they so desire. 16. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.