JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by hereditary trustees of Sree Pathukudi Apathukatha Mahaganapathi Temple, Mannarkad, Palakkad, which is a controlled institution under the 2 nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, seeking the following reliefs; “i) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 2 to 8 not to proceed with the renovation of the 6 th Respondent temple, not to collect any money from any one for the renovation of the temple pending the disputes raised by the 9 th Respondent against the hereditary trustees of the temple including the petitioner herein are finalized; ii) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to call for the entire records culminated in Ext.P13 order and to quash the same; iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to initiate appropriate enquiry proceedings against the alienations of the large extent of landed properties of the 6 th Respondent temple by the 9 th Respondent as revealed by him in Ext.P9 statement and to further direct to take appropriate action to recover such properties in accordance with law; iv) To declare that the constitution and functioning of the 7 th Respondent Committee in the 6 th Respondent temple is unlawful and that they have no right to collect any amount in the name of the 6 th Respondent temple; v) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 7 and 8 to pay the entire amount collected by them for the purpose of renovation of the temple to the temple accounts forthwith” 2. The Petitioner, who is one among the hereditary trustees of Sree Pathukudi Apathukatha Mahaganapathi Temple, Mannarkad, Palakkad, filed this writ petition alleging hasty proceedings on the part of the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officers, hand in glove with the 9 th Respondent, who allegedly alienated extensive areas of landed properties of the temple in blatant violation of the statutory provisions. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in the year 2021, when the 3 rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, as per Ext.P1 order dated 08.01.2021 in O.A.No.2 of 2020 appointed 9 hereditary trustees including the petitioner herein, the 9 th Respondent filed a civil suit challenging the same and obtained Ext.P4 order dated 29.10.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 filed in that suit, which is under challenge in FAO No.80 of 2021 before this Court. When two more hereditary trustees were approved by the 4 th respondent Deputy Commissioner as per Ext.P5 proceedings dated 19.03.2021, 9 th Respondent filed a complaint against them, and as per Ext.P7 order dated 03.10.2023 those trustees were suspended by the Deputy Commissioner as per order in I.A.No.44 of 2023 in M.P.No.04 of 2022. Accordingly, all the Hereditary Trustees of the temple have been kept out of administration by the 9 th Respondent. In Ext.P7 order, the nephew of the 9 th respondent is appointed as the Fit Person to enable the 9 th respondent to continue in active involvement in the temple affairs. Ext.P9, which is a statement earlier submitted by the 9 th respondent before the Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board shows that he had earlier alienated a large extent of property of the temple illegally, but no action has been taken against him till date. Now, Ext.P13 order dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Commissioner sanctioning the plan and Estimate for the renovation of the temple, without the consent or concurrence of the Hereditary trustees and the 7 th renovation Committee is constituted, and the President of the renovation Committee is the 10 th Respondent herein, who is none other than the son of the 9 th Respondent. Though as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.02.2024 in W.P.(C)No.34868 of 2023, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to conclude the disciplinary action within 3 months, the same is violated, and even today the same is not concluded. The 9 th and 10 th respondents are active politicians. Their intention is to keep away the Hereditary Trustees from the administration to facilitate the 9 th respondent and his son, the 10 th respondent, to deal with crores of rupees in the name of the renovation and to misappropriate the same. There is absolutely no necessity to renovate the temple without settling the dispute raised against the Hereditary Trustees. Their intention is to keep away the Hereditary Trustees from the administration to facilitate the 9 th respondent and his son, the 10 th respondent, to deal with crores of rupees in the name of the renovation and to misappropriate the same. There is absolutely no necessity to renovate the temple without settling the dispute raised against the Hereditary Trustees. The ancient structures of the temple, including the sanctum sanctorum, cannot be demolished without the concurrence of the Hereditary Trustees. Ext.P12 public notice dated 08.01.2025 issued by the 7 th respondent shows that all the persons attending the inauguration of the renovation committee are political leaders and workers. No single hereditary trustee is included therein. The attempt is to hijack the temple and its assets by unjustifiably keeping away the Hereditary Trustees appointed by the Commissioner. Ext.P12 notice shows that the Respondents 7 and 8 have decided to shift the deities of Lord Ganapathi and Lord Subrahmanyan on 20-01-2025. The same is in total exclusion of the Hereditary Trustees and by constituting an illegal Committee. 3. On 16.01.2025, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1 st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 5. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 6 to 10, returnable by the next day, that is, on 17.01.2025. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions. 4. On 17.01.2025, respondents 7, 8 and 10 entered appearance through a counsel who sought time to file counter- affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 7, 8 and 10 made available for the perusal of this Court few photographs of the temple structure. The learned counsel for the party respondents furnished a copy of the order dated 15.01.2025 of the Assistant Commissioner, Palakkad, whereby the approval has been granted to the 7 th respondent, Sree Pathukudi Apathukatha Mahaganapathi Renovation Committee, based on decision No.8 taken by the Palakkad area committee of Malabar Devaswom Board on 04.01.2025. The learned counsel for respondents 7, 8 and 10 submitted that Balalaya Prathishta of the temple was scheduled to take place on 20.01.2025 at the time fixed by the Thantri. The learned counsel for respondents 7, 8 and 10 submitted that Balalaya Prathishta of the temple was scheduled to take place on 20.01.2025 at the time fixed by the Thantri. Noting from the photographs made available for perusal by counsel on both sides that the temple structures are in a dilapidated condition, this Court did not interfere with the Balalaya Prathishta scheduled to be held on 20.01.2025. However, the demolition of the temple structures and incurring any expenditure in connection with the renovation work was ordered to be deferred for a period of one week. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board was directed to make available for perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P13 order dated 20.06.2024 of the 3 rd respondent Commissioner and the order dated 15.01.2025 of the 5 th respondent Assistant Commissioner granting approval for the 7 th respondent Renovation Committee. 5. The interim order granted by this Court on 17.01.2025 was extended from time to time. On 07.04.2025, to a specific query made to the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board as to the members of the Renovation Committee constituted as per Ext.R8(b) order dated 15.01.2025 of the Assistant Commissioner, Palakkad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board sought some more time to furnish the list of members of the Renovation Committee. This Court noted that the pleadings and materials on record and also the files handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board regarding the approval granted to the estimate and plan for reconstruction of temple structures, do not disclose the name of the members of the committee. This Court further noted that the normal practice is that after selecting the members for such a Renovation committee, the members of that Committee will elect the office bearers, other than ex-officio members. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even before the issuance of Ext.R8(b) order dated 15.01.2025, the Renovation Committee had published Ext.P12 notice dated 08.01.2025, regarding the inauguration of the renovation work and acceptance of the first contribution etc. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, this Court directed the 5 th respondent Assistant Commissioner, to be personally present in Court along with relevant files to explain the facts and circumstances. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, this Court directed the 5 th respondent Assistant Commissioner, to be personally present in Court along with relevant files to explain the facts and circumstances. 6. On 09.04.2025, in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 07.04.2025, the 5 th respondent Assistant Commissioner, was personally present along with the files. The Assistant Commissioner, who was personally present in Court, submitted that the members of the Renovation Committee were elected in a meeting of the devotees held in the temple premises on 20.09.2024. He handed over a copy of the list of office bearers and members of the said Renovation Committee. It is further pointed out that the Executive Officer of the temple forwarded the said list, based on which Ext.R8(b) proceedings dated 15.01.2025 have been issued. The Assistant Commissioner had no satisfactory explanation for not mentioning the names of the members of the renovation committee in Ext.R8(b) proceedings. On a query made by this Court, the leaned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board submitted that there is no technically qualified persons in the Board for granting approval for the estimate and plan submitted by the hereditary trustees/Trustee Board of the temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in connection with renovation or repair works relating to temple structures. 7. On 11.04.2025, by considering the submissions made at the Bar regarding modification of the interim order dated 17.01.2025, the said interim order was modified to the limited extent of permitting the 6 th respondent Executive Officer, to take necessary steps to proceed with the preparatory works and demolition of existing temple structures which are in a dilapidated condition. Other works relating to the reconstruction of temple structures shall be ordered to be done only after obtaining further orders from this Court. Any disbursement of money in connection with the demolition of the temple structures was directed to be properly accounted and the entire expenditure in that regard was ordered to be subjected to further orders to be passed in this writ petition. 8. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 25.01.2025, producing therewith Exts.R3(1) to R3(4) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. 8. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 25.01.2025, producing therewith Exts.R3(1) to R3(4) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. It is respectfully submitted that the action on the part of the second respondent Board and the 7 th respondent committee to demolish the ancient temple is not at all hasty and the proceedings started way back in 2023 itself. The contention that the President and majority of the members of the renovation committee are active politicians, belonging to one political party of the ruling front and their attempt is to start the renovation process before disposal of the Suit pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, is totally incorrect and uncharitable. 4. It is submitted that the temple building is in dilapidated condition and so is the Sreekovil, due to old age and that was the reason for taking a decision to renovate the temple and construct a new structure, identical to the old one. The dispute regarding the Trusteeship is now pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam as O.S No.51 of 2021 and fit a person is in the office representing the Hereditary Trustee and he also belongs to the Hereditary Trustee family. 5. On the basis of the "Thamboola Prashnam” conducted in the temple on 02.12.2023, it was found that the damaged temple has to be reconstructed. The contention that the 9 th respondent has been unauthorizedly dealing with the funds of the temple for the last many years with his political support is not at all correct and also not known to the Board and its officials and therefore denied. It is true that this Hon'ble Court has passed Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.02.2024, in which this respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.R4(a) appeal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. The 4 th respondent is directed to finally dispose M.P.No.44 of 2022 within a period of four months. This respondent and the 4 th respondent are taking steps to comply with the direction in Ext.P8. The contention that the 9 th respondent is now in overall control of the temple and its financial affairs, is absolutely false. The contention that 9 th respondent with his high political influence got approved a committee for renovation of the temple is absolutely incorrect. The contention that the 9 th respondent is now in overall control of the temple and its financial affairs, is absolutely false. The contention that 9 th respondent with his high political influence got approved a committee for renovation of the temple is absolutely incorrect. Equally, incorrect is the statement that the attempt is to collect huge amount of money in the name of the renovation committee and spent the same as per his whims and fancy. The 9 th respondent has not constituted any committee for renovation of the temple or to demolish any structure. 6. The 6th respondent has submitted application dated 14.02.2024 before the 5 th respondent, placing the estimate of Rs.2,11,50,000/- with the proposed plan and estimate for approval. The true copy of the Application dated 14.02.2024 submitted by the Executive Officer before the 5 th respondent, is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(1). The 5 th respondent vide communication dated 22.03.2024, placed the application of the 6 th respondent Ext.R3(1) along with the decision of the Area Committee dated 15.03.2024, recommending the Plan and Estimate for the renovation and reconstruction of the temple. The true copy of the Communication dated 22.03.2024 submitted by the 5 th respondent to the 3 rd respondent, is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(2). It was thereafter that this respondent approved the plan and estimate for renovation of the temple and passed Ext.P13 Order. 7. It is submitted that, for the efficacious conduct of the renovation and reconstruction of the temple, general body of the devotees of the temple was conducted on 20.9.2024 and Ext.P7 committee was formed with the 6 th respondent as its Treasurer. The true copy of the application dated 27.09.24 submitted by the 6 th respondent to the 5 th respondent, along with the persons who participated in the general body and the members constituting the committee, is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(3).Thereafter, the Area Committee of the 2 nd respondent Board took a decision dated 4.1.2025 and the 2 nd respondent has passed order dated 15.1.2025, taking into consideration of the decision of the Palakkad Area Committee and Ext.R3(3) application of the 6 th respondent. The true copy of the order No.A3-4063/2024/MDB(K.Dis) dated 15.1.2025, is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(4). The true copy of the order No.A3-4063/2024/MDB(K.Dis) dated 15.1.2025, is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(4). It is respectfully submitted that since the temple is lying in a very low level, the level of the land is to be raised and thereafter construction to be effected after demolishing the dilapidated temple. 8. Contention that 9th respondent, is an active politician and is looting temple funds with the active support of the Officers of the 2 nd respondent Board is absolutely incorrect statement. The contention that members of the committee are persons nominated by the political party namely CPI(M) and the person participating in the meeting scheduled on 15.01.2025 are also active politicians, who are members of the Area Committee, persons holding the post of Chairman standing committee of the Mannarkkad Municipality and the members of the said Municipality is absolutely false. Equally, false is the contention that the 4 th respondent has colluded with the 9 th respondent and has constituted the committee in order to make collection of huge amount from the Devotees and Public to utilise the same as they wish”. 9. The 8 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 21.01.2025, producing therewith Exts.R8(a) to R8(e) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 13 of that counter affidavit read thus: “2. It is submitted that the above Writ Petition(C) is filed by the Petitioner whose claim for Hereditary Trusteeship, even though approved by the Malabar Devaswom Board is pending before the Civil Court, and there is an order of injunction. The averments and allegations contained in the Writ Petition(C) in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition(C) it is submitted that the temple building is in dilapidated condition and the rafters of the building as also the other wooden planks in the Mughamandapam and Sreekovil is in totally dilapidated stage due to its age and therefore it was decided to renovate the temple and construct a new structure as such. 3. With regard to the averments in para 2 it is submitted that the dispute regarding the right of inheritance as the Hereditary Trustee is now pending in OS No.51/2021 of Sub Court Ottapalam as admitted by the Writ Petitioner in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Writ Petition(C) As regards the contention regarding the enquiry initiated against the Hereditary Trustees those proceedings have attained finality even according to the statements made by the Writ Petitioner. It is submitted that a fit person is in office representing the Hereditary Trustee the fit person also belongs to the Hereditary Trustee family. The appointment of the fit person was challenged by 2 of the persons claims to be Hereditary Trustees that was not interfered with and in Exhibit P8 Judgment in para 5 it is noticed that the fit person has already taken charges in October, 2023 itself. 4. It is submitted that the averments in paragraphs 6 of the Writ Petition(C) it is submitted that the 9 th Respondent is a member of the Hereditary Trustee family and that the 7 th Respondent Committee was constituted not due to the political influence of the 9 th Respondent it was constituted by including devotees of the temple. 5. With regard to the averments in para 6 and 7 it is submitted that the renovation of the temple after demolishing the old structures was necessitated on the basis of a `Thamboola Prashnam' conducted in the temple by renowned Astrologers on 2-12-2023. It was found that the temple was damaged during `Khilafat Movement' and it has to be reconstructed appropriately. True copy of the `Thamboola Prashnam Charth dated 2-2-2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R8(a). Accordingly a Committee was constituted with due participation of the devotees and public, including Hereditary Trustee family members and that Committee was approved on 4-1-2025 by the Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board. The Committee consists of 35 members. Immediately on approval of the Committee that fact was communicated by the Area Committee to the temple and accordingly Exhibit P12 notice was published. True copy of the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board Palakkad A3-4063/2024/MDB (K.Dis) dated 15-1-2025 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R8(b). 6. Stringent conditions are enumerated in Exhibit R8(a). The Executive Officer, appointed by the Malabar Devaswom Board is the treasurer of the Committee and collections for the purpose of renovation could only be made through receipts issued by the Devaswom and stock register is to be maintained . No collections without including the Devaswom account could be made also. placing bandaram cannot be made by the Committee in the Temple for reconstruction. 7. A detailed estimate report was submitted by the Executive Officer. In that it is stated that the height of the land is to be increased and other constructions are to be effected. No collections without including the Devaswom account could be made also. placing bandaram cannot be made by the Committee in the Temple for reconstruction. 7. A detailed estimate report was submitted by the Executive Officer. In that it is stated that the height of the land is to be increased and other constructions are to be effected. The relevant page of the estimate report submitted by the Executive Officer is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R8(c). 8. It is submitted that in terms of the approval granted by the Malabar Devaswom Board Exhibit P13 order of the Commissioner, the estimate and plan was approved for 2,11,50,000/-on 20-6- 2024. As per the terms of Exhibit P13 since the existing temple is in a low level, the level of the land is to be raised by using 2500 M2 of mud and thereafter the constructions are to be effected after demolishing the dilapidated Temple. It is stated that, check measures has to be made by a person not below the rank of Asst. Engineer, who is in Government service or retired and the construction is to be carried out strictly in terms of Rule 100(2)(q)(r) and (s) of the HR&CE Rules. There are several other conditions also in Exhibit P13. 9. Thereafter all arrangements for Balalaya prathishta was made evident from Exhibit P12 notice. A notice was also published as permitted by the Assistant Commissioner, and the account of the Committee is in the joint name of the President Secretary/Treasurer and fit person. The Executive Officer and the fit person and the Executive Officer was appointed by the Malabar Devaswom Board. True copy of the brochure published by the Punarudharana Committee in which it is specifically stated that donations could be made only through account in the name of the Committee in the Federal Bank Mannarkkad branch. True copy of the brochure published by the Punarudharana Committee of the Temple is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R8(d) . 10. With regard to the averments in para 8 of the Writ Petition(C) it is submitted that, the President of the Committee, is a member of the Hereditary Trustee family and son of the 9 th Respondent and he is not an active politician or an office bearer of any political party. 10. With regard to the averments in para 8 of the Writ Petition(C) it is submitted that, the President of the Committee, is a member of the Hereditary Trustee family and son of the 9 th Respondent and he is not an active politician or an office bearer of any political party. In the face book post issued on 7-5-2021 is nothing to indicate that the President is the office bearer of the any political party. 11. As far as the allegation against the 8th Respondent is concerned, I am not an active politician or office bearer of any political party as alleged. 12. There is no illegality or impropriety attached to Exhibit P13 and it was duly issued by the Commissioner under the provision of the Rules. The photographs of the temple which requires renovation is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R8(e). 13. As regards the Petitioner is concerned he is a member of the Muthaliar community and Samooham that and member of the Hereditary Trustee family and that instead of co-operating with the renovation of the temple which is the long cherished desire of the members of the Hereditary Trustee families and the public at large he is creating problems for reasons best known to him. In terms of the rituals and programmers schedules and decided by the Tantri and Balalaya prathishta was conducted. It is not possible to effect minor repairs to make it suitable. The estimate and plan was submitted by a licenced building supervisor and also Asst. Engineer LSGD retired and also the Executive Officer. The construction includes Sreekovil of 2 temples and Mughamandam, Oottupura, Thidappilly and office cum Vazhipadu counter, toilet complex and Nalambalam including a room for stayal of Santhis and also a compound wall around the Temple property. The estimate runs into Pages. 10. The 9 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 21.01.2025, producing therewith Ext. R9 (a) document. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that counter-affidavit read thus: 3. As regards the averments in paragraphs no. 5 and 6, it is submitted that the temple property and its alienation is concerned, the Pathukudy Muthaliar Samooha Committee has decided to sell a portion of the temple property in a meeting of the Committee held on 16.11.1984 and 18.11.1984 in which the Petitioner was also subscribed his signature along with with his father S. V. Vellamuthali. 5 and 6, it is submitted that the temple property and its alienation is concerned, the Pathukudy Muthaliar Samooha Committee has decided to sell a portion of the temple property in a meeting of the Committee held on 16.11.1984 and 18.11.1984 in which the Petitioner was also subscribed his signature along with with his father S. V. Vellamuthali. Thereafter sanction as sought for from the HR & CE Department. Accordingly, sanction was accorded on 30.04.1985, as per order No.L.Dis 269/85 through the District Government Pleader. It may be noted that the Petitioner's brother Ramaswamy has executed the sale deed. The Petitioner's father Vellamuthali and the Petitioner's brother Ramaswamy is the 8 th signatory in the sale deed executed. Two other sale deeds were also executed in terms of the permission granted by the HR & CE Department U/s.29 of the HR & CE Act. True copy of the sale deed No.3735/1985 of SRO Mannarkkad dated 23.7.1985 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R9(a). Therefore, the Petitioner's brother himself has executed the sale deed as member of the Muthaliar Samooha Committee and as then office bearer. The temple was going through acute financial distress at that time. Thus the property was sold for the purpose of meeting the day to day expenses of the temple and that there were unnecessary hinderers in enjoyment of the property due to encroachments by strangers and other factors. The existence of such a transactions was mentioned by me in Exhibit P9 before the Malabar Devaswom Board. The existence of document is mentioned in internal page no. 3 of Exhibit P9 and 2 other documents is also referred to. The alienation was done only as permitted by the HR & CE Department and that I was only a member of the Samooha Committee like the Petitioner, his father and his brother. Therefore, the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts to suit the proceedings and approached this Hon. Court with unclean hands. 4. I have not exerted any political influence regarding the formation of the Committee. The Committee was formed for reconstructing the temple and that the estimate and plan was approved by the Commissioner and the Committee was approved by the Area Committee. The other allegations in para no.6 is totally incorrect. The injunction against the Hereditary Trustees is still in force. 5. The Committee was formed for reconstructing the temple and that the estimate and plan was approved by the Commissioner and the Committee was approved by the Area Committee. The other allegations in para no.6 is totally incorrect. The injunction against the Hereditary Trustees is still in force. 5. The total extent of the land is 8.84 acres and that it was decided to make the fixed deposit of the sale proceeds for utilizing the same for the development of the temple and a 9-member Committee was constituted including the brother of the Petitioner namely V. Ramaswami, It is stated so in Exhibit P9 itself. The two other documents cover the remaining extent of the land was produced before the Civil Court in the pending litigations. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs”. 11. To these counter affidavits, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 18.02.2025, producing therewith Exts P15 and P16 documents. 12. The 9th respondent filed another additional counter affidavit dated 16.03.2025 producing therewith Exts.R9(b) and R9(c) documents. 13. Respondents 7, 8 and 10 produced Ext R8 (f), the true copy of the drawings of the temple prepared by the architect (thachusastra) along with IA No.5 of 2025. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 7, 8 and 10, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the 9 th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 15. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 is enacted to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras. The Act received the assent of the President on 27.08.1951. By the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 the provisions under the said Act have been made applicable to Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the Malabar District. 16. Clause (11) of Section 6 of the Act defines the term ‘person having interest’. The Act received the assent of the President on 27.08.1951. By the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 the provisions under the said Act have been made applicable to Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the Malabar District. 16. Clause (11) of Section 6 of the Act defines the term ‘person having interest’. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (11) of Section 6 , in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat shall fall under the definition of ‘person having interest’. 17. Clause (9) of Section 6 of the Act defines the term ‘hereditary trustee’ to mean the trustee of a religious institution succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force. Clause (19) of Section 6 defines the term ‘trustee’ to mean any person or body by whatever designation known in whom or in which the administration of a religious institution is vested, and includes any person or body who or which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee. 18. The provisions contained in Chapter II of the Act were substituted by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 31 of 2008), which deals with the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officers. Section 7 of the Act deals with the Constitution of the Malabar Devaswom Board. As per the provisions under Section 7 M, the duties and functions of the Board include a duty to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of Hindu religious institutions and to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 19. In view of the provisions under Section 8 of the Act, all the powers and duties under this Act, in respect of various religious institutions of the Malabar area, that have been exercised or performed by the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Area Committees before the commencement of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008 shall vest in the Board, on its constitution. As per Section 8 A of the Act, subject to supervision and control of the Board, and other provisions of this Act, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Area Committees exercising any power or performing any duty under this Act, before the commencement of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008, shall continue to exercise such powers and perform such duties, as officers of the Board, as if those powers are delegated to them by the Board. 20. As per Section 22 of the Act, no person may succeed or be appointed to, or hold, the office of the trustee of a religious institution, (a) unless he professes the Hindu religion; and (b) except in the case of a hereditary trustee, unless he is not less than twenty-five and not more than seventy years of age. As per Section 23 of the Act, the trustee of a religious institution shall be bound to obey all lawful orders issued under the provisions of this Act by the Government, Board, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner. 21 Section 24 of the Act deals with the care required of the trustee and his powers. As per sub-section (1) of Section 24 , subject to the provisions of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, the trustee of every religious institution is bound to administer its affairs and to apply its funds and properties in accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful directions which a competent authority may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his own. As per sub-section (2) of Section 24 , a trustee shall, subject to the provisions of the Act be entitled to exercise all powers incidental to the provident and beneficial administration of the religious institution and to do all things necessary for the due performance of the duties imposed on him. 22. As per sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, a trustee shall not be entitled to spend the funds of the religious institution for meeting any costs, charges or expenses incurred by him in any suit, appeal or application or other proceeding for, or incidental to, his removal from office or the taking of any disciplinary action against him. As per sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, a trustee shall not be entitled to spend the funds of the religious institution for meeting any costs, charges or expenses incurred by him in any suit, appeal or application or other proceeding for, or incidental to, his removal from office or the taking of any disciplinary action against him. As per the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 24 , the trustee may reimburse himself in respect of such costs, charges or expenses if he is specifically permitted to do so by an order passed under Section 88. 23. Section 45 of the Act deals with the power to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 45 , the Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustees thereof (a) for persistent default in the submission of budgets, accounts, reports or returns, or; (b) for wilful disobedience of any lawful order issued under the provisions of the Act by the State Government, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner; or (c) for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the trust; or (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution; or (e) for unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits him for discharging the functions of the trustee. 24. As per sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Act, when it is proposed to take action under sub-section (1), the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall frame charges against the trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charges, of testing the evidence in his favour; and the order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the charges framed against the trustee, his explanation and the finding on each charge with the reasons therefor. 25. 25. In Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party held that in view of the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Act of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 , as amended by the Amendment Act of 2008, the Malabar Devaswom Board and the authorities of the Board, including the Commissioner, have the duty and obligation to act in trust. In the said decision, this Court held further that in view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act, the trustee of every religious institution is bound to administer its affairs and to apply its funds and properties in accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful directions which a competent authority may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his own. 26. Clauses (r), (s) and (t) of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 , deal with the power to make Rules with reference to the preservation, maintenance, management and improvement of the properties and buildings of religious institutions; the inspection and supervision of the properties and buildings of religious institutions, the reports to be submitted by persons making such inspection and supervision and the fees leviable for such inspection, supervision and report; and the preservation of the images in temples. As per clause (1) of Rule 1 of the Rules made under Section 100 (2)(r), (s) and (t) of the Act, ‘building work’ includes work relating to the construction, repair, alteration, conservation or renovation of a building and other works of construction belonging to a religious institution. As per clause (2) of Rule 1, ‘building’ includes the premises of a religious institution and any building or structure or work relating to agriculture or irrigation, owned by, or in the possession of, a religious institution. As per clause (3) of Rule 1, ‘appropriate authority’ means the Area Committee in relation to religious institutions coming within the jurisdiction of an Area Committee and the Commissioner in relation to other institutions. 27. As per clause (3) of Rule 1, ‘appropriate authority’ means the Area Committee in relation to religious institutions coming within the jurisdiction of an Area Committee and the Commissioner in relation to other institutions. 27. As per Rule 2 of the Rules, the trustee of a religious institution shall submit to the appropriate authority annually, six months before the end of each fasli [a period of twelve months commencing from the 1 st day of July every year], a report on the building works which it is desirable or necessary to carry out during the succeeding fasli, setting out the need for, and the details of, the works and giving a rough estimate of the expenditure involved and of the manner in which the expenditure on the works is proposed to be met. As per Rule 3, proposals in regard to building works that are not purely secular shall be framed with due regard to the principles and practice of traditional architecture and to the need for preserving architecture and sculptural and archeological features. 28. As per Rule 4 of the Rules, whenever a worshipper or other person offers to donate the cost of, or execute any building works, the trustee shall obtain from him details of his proposals and, if he proposes to undertake the works himself, a statement showing the manner in which the necessary finances for the execution of the works will be made available and the time within which the construction will be completed and forward the details or statement, as the case may be, to the appropriate authority with his remarks whether the said offer may be accepted and if so, on what conditions. 29. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, on the appropriate authority approving a proposal of the trustee to execute the building works from the funds of the institution or with a donation made by a worshipper or other person, the trustee shall prepare detailed estimates for the works proposed, make provision in the budget for the proposed expenditure and submit the estimate along with plans to the appropriate authority. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, when the appropriate authority approves the trustee’s proposal to allow a worshipper or other person to execute any building works and settles the conditions on which such permission may be granted, the trustee shall obtain from such worshipper or other person detailed plans and estimates for the works proposed and submit them to the appropriate authority with his remarks. 30. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, the appropriate authority may sanction the plans and estimates submitted under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 with such modifications and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit and where the cost of the construction to be met from the funds of the institution, sanction, the necessary expenditure. As per Rule 7, the appropriate authority may decide whether a construction is to be made departmentally or through contractors. Where execution through contractors is deemed fit the contract shall be given on the open tender system. 31. As per Rule 8 of the Rules, in all cases in which a building work is undertaken, such work shall be subject to supervision, control and inspection as and when the appropriate authority deems fit and the said authority may, at any stage of the execution, order such check measurement and control as may be deemed essential, before the work is further proceeded with or further expenditure incurred. As per the mandate of Rule 9, a trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work without the previous sanction of the appropriate authority, provided that minor repairs, which cannot, owing to urgency, be postponed, may be executed in anticipation of sanction applied for. 32. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, a trustee shall not, except with the appropriate authority's express previous sanction, exceed the expenditure sanctioned or deviate from the plan and estimate approved by the said authority. As per Rule 11, a trustee shall not permit any worshipper or other person to commence the execution of any building work or deviate from the plan approved by the appropriate authority without the previous permission of the said authority. As per Rule 11, a trustee shall not permit any worshipper or other person to commence the execution of any building work or deviate from the plan approved by the appropriate authority without the previous permission of the said authority. As per Rule 12, a trustee shall not repair, alter, replace, sell, gift or destroy an antiquities or other objects of interest, like jewels, vahanams or other movables, sculptures, carvings, inscriptions or paintings without the express previous permission of the Commissioner and such permission shall be accorded only on obtaining competent advice thereon. 33. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules, the appropriate authority should secure technical advice and assistance in respect of all building works proposed to be undertaken by a trustee from out of the funds of the religious institution or proposed by a trustee to be allowed to be executed by a worshipper, at an estimated cost of Rs.10,000/- and above and in other cases when it is of opinion that there is need such advice and assistance as to the necessity of any building works or the nature of the building works or for the preparation or scrutiny of plans and estimates, having due regard to the nature and importance and estimated cost of the building works. 34. As per Rule 17 of the Rules, the trustee shall maintain such books, registers, accounts, vouchers and records in respect of building works and shall make such reports as the Commissioner may require. As per Rule 18, it shall be the duty of the trustee to ensure that utmost care is taken of the architectural, sculptural and archaeological features of every structure in the temple or on its lands in his charge. As per Rule 22, the Commissioner may exclude any class of building works from the operation of these rules on the ground that the cost of the works is too small to require such application. 35. The Rules made under Section 100 (2)(r), (s) and (t) of the Act cover every minute aspect of the work relating to the construction, repair, alteration, conservation or renovation of a building and other works of construction belonging to a religious institution. 35. The Rules made under Section 100 (2)(r), (s) and (t) of the Act cover every minute aspect of the work relating to the construction, repair, alteration, conservation or renovation of a building and other works of construction belonging to a religious institution. In view of the prohibition contained in Rule 9, a trustee shall not undertake or commence any building work without the previous sanction of the appropriate authority, provided that minor repairs, which cannot, owing to urgency, be postponed, may be executed in anticipation of sanction applied for. As per the mandate of Rule 18, it shall be the duty of the trustee to ensure that utmost care is taken of the architectural, sculptural and archaeological features of every structure in the temple or on its lands in his charge. In view of the provisions contained in sub- section (1) Section 24 of the Act, the trustee of every religious institution is bound to administer its affairs and to apply its funds and properties in accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful directions which a competent authority may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his own. Any action of the trustee or the board of trustees of a religious institution, in relation to a ‘building work’ as defined under clause (1) of Rule 1 of the Rules under Section 100 (2)(r), (s) and (t) of the Act, openly flouting the provisions under the said Rules, would enable the Deputy Commissioner, in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, to exercise the powers under Section 45 of the Act, in accordance with law, to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees, for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the trust, as provided under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 , or for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution, as provided under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 , depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 36. 36. Though the petitioner filed the instant writ petition, raising several allegations, during hearing it is brought out that subsisting grievance of the petitioner is pertaining to Ext.R3(4) approval granted to the 7 th respondent Temple Renovation Committee by the 5 th respondent Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. 37. While considering this grievance of the petitioner, it is relevant to note Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (‘the Act’, in short), which deals with the power of the Government to call for records and pass orders. The said Section reads thus: “99. Power of State Government to call for records and pass orders.- (1) The State Government may call for and examine the record of the Board or Commissioner or any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or any Area Committee or of any trustee in respect of any proceeding, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and, if, in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly: Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations. (2) The State Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order, pending the exercise of their powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof.” 38. While considering the provisions discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition, we are of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.R3(4) approval, he can very well challenge the same before the Government under Section 99 of the Act. 39. While considering the provisions discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition, we are of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.R3(4) approval, he can very well challenge the same before the Government under Section 99 of the Act. 39. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in W.P(C) N0.34868 of 2023, directing the 3 rd respondent Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directing the 4 th respondent Deputy Commissioner to finally dispose of M.P. No.4 of 2022, with notice to both sides within a period of four months from the date of that judgment, the said petition is even now pending before the 4 th respondent. As far as this submission of the learned counsel is concerned, we are of the view that the remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the 3 rd respondent Commissioner or initiate other appropriate proceedings. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of, with the above observations, leaving open all the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties to be decided in appropriate proceedings.