JUDGMENT Anil K. Narendran, J The petitioner, who is a devotee of Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam and a former member of the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, which is under the management of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, on behalf of the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, in which respondents 7 to 17 were office bearers/members, stands extended for a period of six months for the purpose of undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’ in the premise of the said temple. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate steps to constitute a new Advisory Committee as envisaged under Section 31A of Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 . 2. On 06.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 5 and 18. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 6 to 17, returnable by 07.02.2025. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions, who was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 and also that relating to the approval, if any, granted by the Board for undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’ of Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam. 3. On 07.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel made available for the perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025. On 11.02.2025, respondents 6 and 7 entered appearance through counsel. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents 8 to 14. This Court perused the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025, whereby the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee stands extended for a period of six months from 08.02.2025, for the purpose of undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’. The document marked as Ext.P3 is two photographs of that ’Kalithattu’. This Court perused the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025, whereby the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee stands extended for a period of six months from 08.02.2025, for the purpose of undertaking the repair works of ’Kalithattu’. The document marked as Ext.P3 is two photographs of that ’Kalithattu’. By a detailed order dated 11.02.2025, this Court stayed the operation of Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 for a period of one week. In the said order it was made clear that the entire activities in the temple shall be managed departmentally by the Sub Group Officer, under the supervision of the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the order dated 11.02.2025 read thus; “4. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the maintenance work of Kalithattu is only a small work, which can be completed within one week. Therefore, the reason stated in Ext.P1 order is one which cannot be sustained in law, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2022 (4) KHC 663] 5. From the file handed over by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, we notice that the request for extension of term by the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee is one made on 21.01.2025, before the Sub Group Officer, Kazhakoottam Devaswom, based on which the Sub Group Officer submitted a report dated 21.01.2025 [the date of the said letter available at page No.5 of the file is corrected as 21.01.2025 instead of 23.01.2025], based on which the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor submitted a report dated 22.01.2025 before the Devaswom Commissioner. 6. Page No.155 of the file contains an endorsement made by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, [P&SGRC], granting extension of term by six months to the Temple Advisory Committee. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that the initial seen on the lefthand side of page No.155 is one made by the Devaswom Commissioner. 7. Having perused the files and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to stay the operation of Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025, for a period of one week. The entire activities in the temple shall be managed departmentally by the Sub Group Officer, under the supervision of the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner.” 4. 7. Having perused the files and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to stay the operation of Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025, for a period of one week. The entire activities in the temple shall be managed departmentally by the Sub Group Officer, under the supervision of the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner.” 4. The 7 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.02.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R7(a) to R7(f) documents. 5. Respondents 1 to 5 and 18 have filed a counter affidavit dated 17.02.2025, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(g) documents, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraph 3 to 7 of that affidavit read thus; “3. It is submitted that the Temple Advisory Committee of the aforesaid temple was constituted on 02.02.2023 and the approval of the said Committee was granted by the 2 nd respondent vide ROC No. 3977/19/NS.1 dated 08.02.2023. However the Secretary of the existing TAC on 08.01.2025 had submitted an application to the 18 th respondent Sub Group Officer, Kazhakoottam Devaswom seeking permission for conducting the necessary repair works of Kalithattu. It was stated in the application that on account of oldness there was loss of weakness for the pillar and the roof required necessary maintenance. True copy of the letter dated 08.01.2025 submitted by the Secretary of the TAC to the 18 th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(a). Thereafter the TAC had submitted yet another letter dated 13.01.2025 to the 18 th respondent seeking extension of 6 months. True copy of the letter dated 13.01.2025 submitted by the TAC to the 18 th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(b). The Thantri of the temple had given his opinion in the matter on 25 th Dhanu month of 1200 ME stating that the necessary repairs can be permitted without any changes in Thachusastra. True Copy of the opinion of the Thantri dated 25 th Dhanu month of 1200 ME is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(c). 4. The Sub Group officer had submitted his report in the matter on 13.01.2025 recommending for necessary extension of the tenure of TAC in view of the works to be conducted. The Assistant Engineer, Ulloor had submitted his report on 15.01.2025 to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor in the matter. 4. The Sub Group officer had submitted his report in the matter on 13.01.2025 recommending for necessary extension of the tenure of TAC in view of the works to be conducted. The Assistant Engineer, Ulloor had submitted his report on 15.01.2025 to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor in the matter. True copy of the report dated 15.01.2025 submitted by the Assistant Engineer, Ulloor to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(d). Thereafter the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor (In Charge) had submitted his report dated 17.01.2025 to the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner. True copy of the report dated 17.01.2025 submitted by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor (In Charge) to the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(e). 5. It may be noted that on 21.01.2025 the TAC had submitted yet another application to the 18 th respondent along with a detailed estimate of the works and sought extension of six months tenure from 8.02.2025 onwards for conducting necessary repair works of the Kalithattu with the supervision of Devaswom officials and without any collection of funds. True copy of the application dated 21.01.2025 submitted by the TAC to the 18 th respondent along with estimate dated 20.01.2025 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(f). 6. It may be noted that the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor (In Charge) had submitted his report dated 22.01.2025 further in the matter to the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commssioner. True copy of the report dated 22.01.2025 submitted by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Ulloor (In Charge) to the 2 nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit- R1(g). 7. It is further submitted that it is after taking into consideration all the aforesaid aspects and reports that the 2 nd respondent had issued Ext.P1 whereby it was decided to extend the tenure of the TAC for further six months from 08.02.2025 to 07.08.2025. It was also insisted that the necessary works shall be done without any collection of funds and it was also instructed to constitute a new TAC immediately after the completion of the tenure.” 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 21.02.2025 to the aforesaid counter affidavits. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 5 and 18 and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 21.02.2025 to the aforesaid counter affidavits. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 5 and 18 and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 has made available for the perusal of this Court a few photographs of the ’Kalithattu’ in Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam. Those photographs are reproduced hereunder; 9. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025, whereby the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam stands extended for period of six months, can be sustained in law. 10. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. 11. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 12. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 13. Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act deals with the formation of Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 31A, a Committee for each temple, in the name “Temple Advisory Committee” (name of the temple), may be constituted in order to ensure the participation of Hindu devotees. 13. Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act deals with the formation of Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 31A, a Committee for each temple, in the name “Temple Advisory Committee” (name of the temple), may be constituted in order to ensure the participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub- section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice, prevailing, if any. 14. In the exercise of the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed Rules (Bye-laws) for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under its management, which has been approved by this Court, by the order dated 03.11.2011 in DBA No.153 of 2009. 15. 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 noticed that, a reading of the provisions under Clause (9) of the Rules make it explicitly clear that the construction or repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. It would certainly be open to the Travancore Devaswom Board to undertake such construction, repair or renovation work in a temple, directly by its Maramath Department. However, when the Board has chosen to undertake such construction or repair or renovation work in a temple through a committee, under the supervision of the officials in Maramath Department, it has to be undertaken through the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act, under constant supervision and scrutiny by the concerned officers of the Board, in order to ensure that the activities of the committee is in compliance with the directions issued by the Board. Therefore, the construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. 16. Therefore, the construction, repair or renovation work that has to be undertaken in a temple is not outside the purview of the Temple Advisory Committees constituted under Section 31A of the Act. 16. In Sunil Kumar C. [ 2022 (4) KHC 663 ] this Court noticed that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee is two years from the date of approval of the election by the Devaswom Commissioner, who has the authority to extend the term by one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. The Board has the power to extend the term by a further period of one year in case of development works or unavoidable rituals in the temple. In view of the prohibition contained in Clause (11) of the Rules, the term of the Temple Advisory Committee cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. a person, who is an office bearer or member of the Temple Advisory Committee is not eligible to continue as such, continuously exceeding the term of two Committees. As held by this Court in Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2021 (3) KHC 379 ] the power of the Devaswom Commissioner or the Board to extend the term of the Temple Advisory Committee shall not be exercised as a matter of course. The Devaswom Commissioner or the Board, as the case may be, shall call for a report regarding the developmental works going on in the temple concerned or the unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple and apply its mind to the materials and take a decision as to whether extension of term has to be given or not. The provisions under Clause (18) of the Rules provide sufficient safeguards to prevent illegal collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee for development activities in a temple. 17. As already noticed hereinbefore, the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, in which respondents 7 to 17 were office bearers/members, was only up to 08.02.2025. Seeking extension of the term, the Temple Advisory Committee submitted Ext.R7(a) request dated 13.01.2025 before the 18 th respondent Sub Group Officer, Kazhakoottam. The document marked as Ext.R7(b) is a copy of the permission granted by the Tantri on 25 th day of Dhanu 1200 ME (08.01.2025). Seeking extension of the term, the Temple Advisory Committee submitted Ext.R7(a) request dated 13.01.2025 before the 18 th respondent Sub Group Officer, Kazhakoottam. The document marked as Ext.R7(b) is a copy of the permission granted by the Tantri on 25 th day of Dhanu 1200 ME (08.01.2025). Ext.R7(c) is a copy of detailed estimate prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Ulloor, for a total amount of Rs.1,37,781/-. The Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, vide Ext.R7(d) order dated 20.01.2025, granted sanction to the Temple Advisory Committee to execute the work in question, after entering into an agreement with the Executive Engineer. On 07.02.2025, just one day before the expiry of the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, Ext.R7(e) agreement is entered into by the President and Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee with the Assistant Engineer, Ulloor. Thereafter, a meeting of the Temple Advisory Committee was held on 08.02.2025, as evidenced by Ext.R7(f) minutes. 18. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would point out the averment in paragraph No.9 of their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has come forward with a request that he may be entrusted with the work of illumination in connection with the temple festival, which was not accepted by the Temple Advisory Committee. Annoyed by the same, he has filed the present writ petition. 19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the extension of the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee, granted vide Ext. P1 order dated 23.01.2025 of the 3 rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, on behalf of the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, is one issued in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663] , which was followed in later decisions. P1 order dated 23.01.2025 of the 3 rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, on behalf of the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, is one issued in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. [2022 (4) KHC 663] , which was followed in later decisions. When such extension of term can only be on account of any development works going on in the temple or any unavoidable rituals to be carried out in the temple, respondents 2 and 3 committed a grave error in extending the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee in which respondents 7 to 17 were the office bearers/ members, for a period of six months, for undertaking the repair works of the ‘Kalithattu’ seen in the photographs reproduced hereinbefore at paragraph 6, a minor work, which could easily be completed within a period of two or three weeks. In the order dated 11.02.2025, this Court having perused the files relating to Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 noticed that page No.155 of the said files contains an endorsement made by the 3 rd respondent Deputy Devaswom Commissioner (P&SGRC) grating extension of term by six months. In the said order this Court noticed the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the initial seen on the lefthand side at page No.155 is one made by the 2 nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner. We notice that the even the procedure adopted by respondents 2 and 3 while granting extension of the term of the 6 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee is in flagrant violation of the directions contained in the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar C. [ 2022 (4) KHC 663 ] In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P1 order dated 23.01.2025 and by directing the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to take immediate steps to constitute a Temple Advisory Committee in Vadakkum Bhagam Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kazhakoottam, after convening a meeting of the devotees. Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken immediately on receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is for the Travancore Devaswom Board or the newly elected Temple Advisory Committee to take immediate steps to ensure that the ‘Kalithattu’ is maintained properly, after undertaking necessary repair works.