JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. This writ petition is one filed by Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi, the Temple Advisory Committee in Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act , 1950. The said temple is under the management of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs; ''i. To declare that the Ext.P2 compromise decree is not binding on the deity, petitioner Samithi or the devotees of the temple; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to perform the Paraeduppu Ezhunillippu of the Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple scheduled to be started from 8 th of Makaram Malayalam month by issuing receipts get sealed by the Devaswom Board; iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the Jeevatha belongs to the temple alone shall be used to take Devi in procession at Paraeduppu Ezhunnullippu; and iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to ensure that the entire income from the Paraeduppu Ezhunnullippu of the Devi shall be deposited in the Devaswom to be accounted and to be utilized for the development of the temple; 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, which is an incorporated temple included in the schedule of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which is under the administration of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. In the year 1998, the 4 th respondent Kadasseri Mumila NSS Karayogam filed O.S.No.16 of 1998 against the Devaswom Board to declare their right to conduct various rituals in the temple, which stood dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 09.09.2005. In appeal, the Devaswom Board entered into a compromise with the 4 th respondent, by granting them the relief of conducting the Paraeduppu Ezhunullippu of the Devi for 5 days in Makarom Malayalam month of every year. The 4 th respondent relinquished all their claims except the Paraeduppu. In appeal, the Devaswom Board entered into a compromise with the 4 th respondent, by granting them the relief of conducting the Paraeduppu Ezhunullippu of the Devi for 5 days in Makarom Malayalam month of every year. The 4 th respondent relinquished all their claims except the Paraeduppu. According to the petitioner, the said compromise is not binding either on the deity or the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi or the devotees of the temple, as they were not parties to the suit or appeal. The petitioner is undertaking all the development and renovation works of the temple with the active participation of the devotees and the Devaswom authorities have acknowledged that aspect many times. The petitioner, in November 2015, made an offering of a new Jeevatha to the temple to take Devi in procession while ezhunullippu. There are more than 1700 Para used to be taken in a year and the amount collected per Para is Rs.190/-. Almost all the devotees of the temple made complaints to the Devaswom Board and the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi for permitting a particular community to conduct Paraeduppu of the temple and permitting them to appropriate the entire amount collected from it without making any payment to the temple or to the Devaswom Board. The petitioner Samithi requested the Devaswom Board to permit it to perform Paraeduppu Ezhunullippu of the temple, from the year 2016, with an undertaking that they will issue the receipts countersigned or sealed by the Devaswom Board and the entire amount collected from the Paraeduppu would be utilised for the development of the temple under the supervision of the Board. But, respondents 1 to 3 are not responding to that request and, on the other hand, extending help to the 4 th respondent NSS Karayogam. 3. On 27.01.2016, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice was ordered to respondents 3 and 4. 4. By the order dated 20.07.2016 in I.A.No.6911 of 2016, additional respondents 5 to 12 were impleaded. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P11 as an additional document. 5. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit dated 06.02.2019, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus; ''3. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P11 as an additional document. 5. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit dated 06.02.2019, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus; ''3. The petitioner Samithi is not entitled any of the reliefs prayed in the Whit Petition. Earlier, the Secretary, Temple Advisory Committee (TAC). Kollakkal Paroor Madom Devi Kshetram filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Ombudsman on the same issue. The main prayer in the complaint is that, the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court is not in the interest of the Devaswom and it was only the interest of NSS Karayogam. The TAC also claims that, the 'Koottamkottu' Ezhunelippu is also given to the NSS Karayogam and it ought to have been given to the TAC, so that, income can be used for the benefit of the temple. 4. Above complaint was registered as Complaint No.102 of 2015 by the Hon'ble Ombudsman and notice was issued to all the parties including the Secretary of Muthukulam North NSS Karayogam. At the time of hearing of the case, the TAC limited their prayer to the effect that, though the NSS Karayogam may be permitted to conduct 'Parayeduppu', it should be in a transparent manner by using sealed receipts issued by the Devaswom Board. Since these conditions are not part of the compromise decree, the Hon'ble Ombudsman referred the matter to this Hon'ble Court as per report dated 19.08.2015. A copy of the report dated 19.08.2015 in TDB Report No.129 of 2015 in complaint No.102 of 2015 of the Hon'ble Ombudsman (without Annexures) is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder.- "5. According to the complainants, the claim of the NSS Karoyogam was discussed in detail by the trial court and found against the plaintiff and there was no necessity for the Devaswom Board to enter into a compromise in Appeal without taking into consideration the interest of other sections of the Japanes Hindu Community and there is no justification for the NSS Karayogam alone to be permitted to conduct the Para Exhunnullippu on all the five days. The complainants have also pointed out that other organizations belonging to Hindu Community like SNDP, Viswakarma Mahasbha and Thandan Mahasabha have also expressed their disagreement and produced copies of their representations before me. 6. During the discussion, the complainants have limited their prayer for a direction that though the NSS Karayogam may be permitted to conduct Parayeduppu, they should use the receipts sealed by the Devaswom Board and the Kanikkakudam sealed by the Devaswom Board must be used at the time of Parayeduppu. Their further request is that the Devaswom Officer or other staff of the Devaswom Board must accompany the Parayeduppu so that there will be no malpractice by the NSS Karayogam. 7. Since all three conditions now set up by the complainants are not part of the compromise decree, it may be necessary for the Honourable High Court to give appropriate directions. Copy of the compromise decree is marked as Annexure A. In Annexure A, there is provision for the presence of the Devaswom Commissioner Officer during Para Ezhunnallipu only if it is requested by the NSS Karayogam. The complainants or other Hindu Organizations were not parties to the Suit or the Appeal and the compromise decree may not be binding on them". 5. A reading of the above paragraphs will show that TAC conceded at the time of hearing of the complaint before the Hon'ble Ombudsman to the effect that, they are not disputing the compromise decree and they want some conditions to be imposed, while permitting NSS Karayogam to conduct 'Parayaduppu'. The matter was referred to this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court as per Exhibit P10 judgment disposed the matter and found that, the benefit of the compromise decree issued by the District Court, Mavelikkara in A.S.No.231 of 2005 can be enjoyed by the NSS Karayogam. Relevant portion of Exhibit P10 is extracted hereunder:- ''In the result the captioned DBP and the Writ Petition are ordered holding that the NSS Karayogam (Kadasseri Munnila) No.1062, Muthukulam North, may enjoy the benefit of the compromise decree issued by the District Court, Mavelikkara in A.S.No.231 of 2005 and nothing beyond. The DBP and the writ petition ordered accordingly". 6. After Exhibit P10 judgment, now the petitioner Samithi coming before this Hon'ble Court challenging Exhibit P2 compromise decree, contending that, it is not binding on the deity, petitioner Samithi or the devotees of the temple. The DBP and the writ petition ordered accordingly". 6. After Exhibit P10 judgment, now the petitioner Samithi coming before this Hon'ble Court challenging Exhibit P2 compromise decree, contending that, it is not binding on the deity, petitioner Samithi or the devotees of the temple. All the prayers in the Writ Petition are considered in Exhibit R1(a) report and thereafter by this Hon'ble Court in Exhibit P10 judgment. In such situation, the petitioner Samithi cannot re-agitate the issue in this Writ Petition afresh. Therefore, all the contentions raised in this Writ Petition are denied except those are specifically admitted in this counter affidavit. 7. The averments in Paragraph 9 and 10 that, the compromise decree is against the interest of the devotees and welfare of the temple cannot be accepted at this stage because the compromise decree is considered by this Hon'ble Court in Exhibit P10 judgment in which the TAC of the temple is a party. It is factually incorrect that, respondents No.1 to 3 are not showing interest in the Development and maintenance of the temple. The petitioner Samithi is suppressed Exhibit R1(a) report of the Hon'ble Ombudsman in the Writ Petition. The fact that, Exhibit P10 is a common judgment in W.P.(C)No.38202 of 2015 and DBP No.129 of 2015, which arose from Exhibit R1(a) report of the Hon'ble Ombudsman. This is also suppressed by the petitioner Samithi in this Writ Petition. In Exhibit R1(a) report, the TAC conceded the right of the 4 th respondent based on Exhibit P1 judgment. This Hon'ble Court also in effect approved Exhibit P1 compromise decree. In such situation, the contentions of the petitioner Samithi challenging Exhibit P1 compromise decree at this belated time is unsustainable. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may kindly dismiss the above Writ Petition in the light of the facts stated above.'' 6. The petitioner has produced Ext.R1(a) report dated 19.08.2015 of the learned Ombudsman in TDB Report No.129 of 2015 in complaint No.102 of 2015. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 18.01.2019. 7. The 4 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.03.2019, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus; ''4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 18.01.2019. 7. The 4 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.03.2019, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus; ''4. The allegations in paragraph No.9 of the Writ Petition that ExtP2 compromise is against the interest of the devotees of the temple belonging to other denominations of the Hindus and is against the interest and welfare of the temple is incorrect and hence denied. It is the deity represented by a competent person who has to answer this allegation and the deity is conveniently omitted to be impleaded as a party respondent. 5. The Secretary of the Petitioner Samithy had earlier filed Complaint No.102 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Ombudsman raising the very same contentions in this Writ Petition claiming that ExtP2 compromise decree is not in the interests of the temple and its devotees and claiming the right to do the Koottamkottu Ezhunnellippu which was given to the NSS Karayogam. At the time of hearing the Samithi agreed that the Karayogam may be permitted to conduct the Parayeduppu subject to the condition that the same should be done in a transparent manner by using the sealed receipts issued by the Devaswom Board. The Hon'ble Ombudsman referred the matter to this Hon'ble Court with its report. This Hon'ble Court took the report on board as DBP No.129 of 2015. Meanwhile, the NSS Karayogam filed W.P(C)No.38202 of 2015 seeking a direction to get involved in the Para Ezhunnullippu. The Petitioner Samithi was also a party to those proceedings. This Hon'ble Court as per Ext- P10 judgment disposed of those matters holding that the NSS Karayogam may enjoy the benefit of Ext-P2 compromise decree issued by the District Court, Mavelikkara and nothing beyond. Hence, the Petitioner Samithi is not entitled to challenge Ext-P2 decree, and the contentions of the Petitioner Samithi in this Writ Petition are hit by the principles of res judicata. All these facts have been suppressed by the Petitioner. As per Ext-P10 judgment, this Hon'ble Court approved Ext-P2 compromise decree and it has become final. The Petitioner cannot re-agitate the vary same issue again before this Hon'ble Court. 6. The allegations in Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 are not correct and hence denied. All these facts have been suppressed by the Petitioner. As per Ext-P10 judgment, this Hon'ble Court approved Ext-P2 compromise decree and it has become final. The Petitioner cannot re-agitate the vary same issue again before this Hon'ble Court. 6. The allegations in Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 are not correct and hence denied. It is incorrect to allege that the Board is not showing interest in the development and maintenance of the temple. The allegation that the Petitioner represents the entire devotees of the temple and the Writ Petition is filed on behalf of the entire devotees of the temple irrespective of their cast is incorrect and hence denied. 7. The renovations and maintenance works done by the Petitioner Samithi will not in any manner entitle them to re- open a settled issue relating to the right of the Karayogam to carry out the Para Ezhunnullippu with the Jeevatha owned by it. The NSS Karayogam has got every right to conduct the Para Ezhunnullippu using its Jeevatha. The allegation that the income obtained from the Para Ezhunnullippu is misappropriated by the Karayogam is not correct and hence denied. The income and expenditure of the Para Ezhunnullippu is properly accounted and audited in accordance with law. None of the condition in Ext-P2 are violated. 8. All the other allegations and the grounds raised in the Writ Petition are frivolous and incorrect and hence denied. The Petitioner Samithi cannot in any manner raise a claim to conduct the Para Ezhunnullippu. The Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is filed without any bonafides and is liable to be dismissed. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the above Writ Petition with costs.'' 8. The counter affidavit dated 26.03.2019 was followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 08.12.2022 filed by the 4 th respondent, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(e) documents. 9. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed an additional counter affidavit dated 15.12.2022, producing therewith Exts.R1(b) to R1(d) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that additional counter affidavit read thus; ''2. The respondents 1 to 3 had earlier filed a counter affidavit in the aforesaid Writ Petition on 08.02.2019. 9. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed an additional counter affidavit dated 15.12.2022, producing therewith Exts.R1(b) to R1(d) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that additional counter affidavit read thus; ''2. The respondents 1 to 3 had earlier filed a counter affidavit in the aforesaid Writ Petition on 08.02.2019. However, in view of the fact that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, certain subsequent developments have taken place, it has become inevitable to place and additional affidavit on record. Therefore, this additional counter affidavit is filed in the matter. The same may be treated as part and continuation of the affidavit filed by these respondents on 08.02.2019. 3. It is submitted that the 4 th respondent had preferred a complaint before the Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards as Complaint No.168 of 2016 against the illegal collection of money by the then Temple Advisory Committee for constructing 'Jeevitha'. The Ombudsman vide order dated 07.12.2016 had ordered for a Vigilance Enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was enquired by the Vigilance wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Vigilance Officer, Central Zone, Mavelikkara had submitted his report in the matter on 25.05.2017 before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board. A true copy of the Vigilance report dated 25.05.2017 submitted by Vigilance Officer, Central Zone, Mavelikkara is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). 4. It may be noted that based on Exhibit R1(b) report, the Devaswom Commissioner vide letter dated 20.07.2017 had directed the 2 nd respondent to entrust the 3 rd respondent to collect back the “Kannadi Prabha”, gold plated “Mukhapattu” and “Jeevitha Ura” from the Temple Advisory Committee after issuing receipt and to maintain the same in his custody. Direction was also given to initiate strict actions against the temple advisory committee for the illegal collection of funds and for misappropriation of funds. 5. It is submitted that Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Haripad, vide letter dated 19.02.2018 had informed the Devaswom Commissioner that the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner had inspected the 'Jeevitha' and has submitted a valuation statement. It was also stated that urgent instruction is given to the Sub Group Officer Pandavarkavu to take over the Kannadi Prabha”, gold plated “Mukhapattu” and “Jeevitha Ura” and to register case. It was also stated that urgent instruction is given to the Sub Group Officer Pandavarkavu to take over the Kannadi Prabha”, gold plated “Mukhapattu” and “Jeevitha Ura” and to register case. A true copy of the letter dated 19.02.2018 issued by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Haripad to the Devaswom Commissioner along with the valuation statement prepared by the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). 6. It is submitted that accordingly the Sub Group officer after issuing receipt had taken the “Kannadi Prabha”, gold plated “Mukhapattu” and “Jeevitha Ura” form the Temple Advisory Committee into his safe custody also. The 2 nd respondent vide letter dated 17.04.2018 had submitted a letter to the Devaswom Commissioner seeking permission for use of 'Jeevitha' which is newly constructed for the festival purposes. A true copy of the letter date 17.04.2018 submitted by the 2 nd respondent to the Devaswom Commissioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(d). The Temple Advisory Committee members were disqualified by these respondents in accordance to the order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner dated 20.07.2017. 10. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 22.05.2023, producing therewith Ext.P13 receipts issued by the 4 th respondent for the Paraeduppu Ezhunullippu. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and additional respondents 5 to 12. 12. From the averments in the additional counter affidavit dated 15.12.2022, we notice that the 4 th respondent had preferred a complaint before the learned Ombudsman as Complaint No.168 of 2016, alleging illegal collection of money by the Temple Advisory Committee for constructing 'Jeevitha'. The Ombudsman, vide order dated 07.12.2016, directed a Vigilance Enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, the matter was enquired by the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Vigilance Officer, Central Zone, Mavelikkara, submitted Ext.R1(b) report dated 25.05.2017 before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Based on Ext.R1(b) report, the Devaswom Commissioner, vide letter dated 20.07.2017, directed the 2 nd respondent Assistant Commissioner to collect through the 3 rd respondent Sub Group Officer, “Kannadi Prabha”, gold plated “Mukhapattu” and “Jeevitha Ura” from the Temple Advisory Committee, after issuing receipt and to maintain the same in his custody. Based on Ext.R1(b) report, the Devaswom Commissioner, vide letter dated 20.07.2017, directed the 2 nd respondent Assistant Commissioner to collect through the 3 rd respondent Sub Group Officer, “Kannadi Prabha”, gold plated “Mukhapattu” and “Jeevitha Ura” from the Temple Advisory Committee, after issuing receipt and to maintain the same in his custody. Direction was also given to initiate strict actions against the Temple Advisory Committee for the illegal collection of funds and misappropriation of funds. 13. We do not propose to consider the rival contentions on the above aspect since it is for the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take an appropriate decision on the said aspect, after considering the reports of the Vigilance Wing, with notice to the Temple Advisory Committee. 14. In so far as the first relief sought for in this writ petition is concerned, i.e., a declaration that the Ext.P2 compromise decree is not binding on the deity, petitioner Samithi or the devotees of the temple, we notice that the said relief falls outside the purview of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the order dated 09.11.2022, this Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Samithi that the petitioner proposes to withdraw relief Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv), without prejudice to its right to move the appropriate forum. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner Samithi seeks permission to withdraw relief Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv), without prejudice to the right of the petitioner Samithi to move the appropriate forum. 16. Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Samithi, relief Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv) are dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner Samithi to move the appropriate forum. 17. Insofar as the second relief sought for in the writ petition, i.e., a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to perform the Paraeduppu Ezhunillippu of the Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple scheduled to be started from 8 th of Makaram Malayalam month by issuing receipts get sealed by the Devaswom Board, is concerned the temple in question is one under the management of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. 18. 18. In Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 2022 (4) KHC 663 ] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party held that as per Clause (2) of the Bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department. Clause (18) of the Bye-law prohibits the Temple Advisory Committee from collecting funds in connection with any ceremonies in the temple by placing kanikkavanchi or hundies. When coupons are printed for development activities in the temple, with the approval of the Department, only coupons for the specified amount shall be printed. No receipts without the seal of the Assistant Commissioner shall be used for collecting funds. Therefore, the provisions under Clause (18) of the Bye-law provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the illegal collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee for development activities in a temple. 19. As held by this Court in Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (2) KHC 290 ] in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act , the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the temples under its management are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in such temples for the devotees. The Board shall manage the properties and affairs of such temples and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in the temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of S.31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. 20. 20. The provisions contained in the Bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act would not enable the petitioner Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, either to collect or appropriate the amounts paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. The 4 th respondent NSS Karayogam cannot also collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. 21. In Arjunan T.N. v. President, Temple Advisory Committee and others [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a DBP registered on the basis of TDB Report No.39 of 2011 of the learned Ombudsman on a complaint made by the devotees of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple, which is a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board relating to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of that temple, utilising the money collected from the devotees by the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple. The Tantri of the temple inaugurated the collection scheme. One Somanathan, who was dealing with the affairs of the Temple Advisory Committee, and Madhusoodhanan, registered a Trust in the name Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust and the land was purchased in the name of that Trust utilising the funds collected from the devotees. The registration of the Trust was more than two months after the collection of funds and the property was got conveyed in favour of Madhusoodhanan, Somanathan and Raveendran on behalf of that Trust. The Division Bench held that the acquisition on behalf of Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust is, obviously, in the form of a dedication to the deity of the temple concerned and such dedication has been made utilising the funds collected from the public at large, that too, by an entity acting on behalf of the people, who were prepared to make such dedication. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the Land Endowment Scheme, a conglomeration of well minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the Land Endowment Scheme, a conglomeration of well minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by document No.6540/2006 is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilising the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. The Travancore Devaswom Board holds all the properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Therefore, the Division Bench declared that the land covered by the aforesaid document and all structures standing thereon vest absolutely in the deity of Kaippallikkavu Bhagavathi Temple and those properties can only be managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Any person occupying such property, including Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust, shall cease to occupy that parcel and it will be exclusively under the management and control of the Travancore Devaswom Board on behalf of the deity. 22. In Murukan K.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2015 (1) KHC SN 17 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that in view of the law laid down in Arjunan T.N. [2012 (4) KHC 155] , the collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee, based on the approval granted by the Board, against receipts with the seal of the Assistant Commissioner, in connection with the conduct of temple festival or for construction, repair or renovation work in the temple, is collection of money in the name of the deity. The purpose of such collection is for the benefit of the deity. Therefore, the Board has to ensure that the amounts collected by the Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under its management in connection with the conduct of temple festival or for construction, repair or renovation work in the temple, which are credited into the account of the Advisory Committee, are transferred to the Devaswom fund temporarily. Thereafter, adopting the method of issuing payment cheques from the Devaswom fund, on the basis of payment bills prepared by the Maramath wing of the Board, payments can be released to the contractor. Thereafter, adopting the method of issuing payment cheques from the Devaswom fund, on the basis of payment bills prepared by the Maramath wing of the Board, payments can be released to the contractor. If such a procedure is adopted, the supervision of the Maramath wing of the Board will be more effective and the work files can be kept in the Maramath wing, which can be subjected to regular audit by the State Audit Department, annually. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by making it clear that in view of the provisions contained in the Bye- law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple cannot either collect or appropriate the amounts paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. Similarly, the 4 th respondent NSS Karayogam cannot also collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. Any collection of money from the devotees for Paraeduppu can only be against sealed receipts issued by the 2 nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the amounts collected from the devotees will have to be credited into the account of the Devaswom.