JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is a devotee of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the direction contained in Ext.P3 order dated 16.11.2024 of the 1 st respondent Board, whereby the application made by the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee stands rejected, is complied with in letter and spirit, by permitting the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple to conduct Desavilakku in terms of that permission. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee and the 4 th respondent, who is its President, do not collect contributions in the name of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple and do not conduct Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku on 30.11.2024 in the temple property or its vicinity; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 6 th respondent Station House Officer, Kunnamkulam Police Station, to take strict action against the 3 rd and 4 th respondents and its members in case there are attempts to conduct Desa Vilakku on 30.11.2024. 2. On 28.11.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6 th respondent Station House Officer. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 3 to 5, returnable by 29.11.2024 at 10.15 a.m. Paragraph 4 of the order of this Court dated 28.11.2024 reads thus; “4. The learned Standing Counsel seeks time to get instructions with specific reference to Ext.P4 notice published by the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee, in which it is written as follows; “Cochin Devaswom Thalakottukara Bagavathy Kshetram Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee” 3. On 29.11.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order, which reads thus; “The 3 rd respondent enters appearance through counsel, who seeks time to file counter affidavit. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel would admit that Ext.P4 notice is one published by the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desha Vilakku Committee. 2. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel would admit that Ext.P4 notice is one published by the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desha Vilakku Committee. 2. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of Board order dated 27.11.2024, which is one issued based on an order dated 27.11.2024 of the Devaswom Commissioner, whereby, the 3 rd respondent Committee has been permitted to conduct Ayyappan Vilakku in the temple compound of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple, subject to the conditions stipulated in that order, which is one authorising a committee by name Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the statutory provisions contained in Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and also the bye-laws framed by the Board in exercise of its powers under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent has handed over an original receipt bearing No.1305 dated 28.11.2022. 5. Registrar (Judicial) to keep the said receipt in safe custody. 6. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and also that of the 3 rd respondent shall be placed on record by 03.12.2024. 7. Petitioner to file an application to implead Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee as an additional respondent.” 4. By the order of this Court dated 04.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee was impleaded as the additional 7 th respondent. The learned counsel, who entered appearance for the additional 7 th respondent, sought time to cure the defects noted by Registry in the vakalath filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, i.e., Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee. By the order dated 04.12.2024, this Court directed that a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board shall be placed on record within one week. 5. The 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.01.2025. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; “2. It is submitted that the above writ petition is filed praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that Ext.P3 order is complied with in letter and spirit. 5. The 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.01.2025. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; “2. It is submitted that the above writ petition is filed praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that Ext.P3 order is complied with in letter and spirit. The further reliefs sought for is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that respondents 3 and 4 do not collect contributions in the name of Thalakkottukara Bhagavathy temple and also do not conduct Thathwamasi Desavilakku on 30.11.2024 in the temple property or its vicinity. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the 6 th respondent to take action against respondents 3 and 4 and its members in case there are attempts to conduct Desavilakku on 30.11.2024. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of temple advisory committee of Thalakottukara temple and he is serial No.9 in Exhibit P1 order dated 06.10.2022. The petitioner has also impleaded the temple advisory committee as 5 th respondent in the writ petition. The grievance sought to be projected by the petitioner is that respondents 3 to 5 are collecting funds in the name of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy temple for the purpose of conducting Desavilakku. Ext.P3 order dated 16.11.2024 would show that an application dated 12.08.2024 was submitted by Kshethra Kshema Samithy and on 11.08.2024 an application was submitted by the 3 rd respondent. An application was also submitted by the temple advisory committee on 11.10.2024. Based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur Group dated 03.09.2024 and 14.10.2024, the first respondent board has taken a decision on 15.11.2024 and it is based on that decision, Ext.P3 order dated 16.11.2024 was issued. Ext.P3 order would show that the application submitted by the Kshethra Kshema Samithy and the 3 rd respondent for conducting Desavilakku was rejected by the first respondent. The first respondent has not granted any permission to publish Exhibit P4 notice. Based on Ext.P3 order, Desavilakku was conducted by the temple advisory committee on 19.11.2024. 4. Ext.P3 order would show that the application submitted by the Kshethra Kshema Samithy and the 3 rd respondent for conducting Desavilakku was rejected by the first respondent. The first respondent has not granted any permission to publish Exhibit P4 notice. Based on Ext.P3 order, Desavilakku was conducted by the temple advisory committee on 19.11.2024. 4. It is submitted that an application dated 23.11.2024 was submitted by one T. V. Karthikeyan and P.V.Sajeesh as the President and Secretary of Thathwamasi Vilakku Committee to the President of the first respondent Board. In this regard true copy of application dated 23.11.2024 submitted by the Secretary, Thathwamasi Ayyappan Vilakku Committee to the President of the first respondent Board is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). Exhibit R1(a) application was forwarded to the Devaswom Commissioner and after obtaining the remarks of the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur Group, Order No.A5- 14213/23 dated 27.11.2024 was issued by the first respondent. In this regard a true copy of order No.A5- 14213/23 dated 27.11.2024 issued by the first respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). The Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur Group submitted report bearing No. M1.5049/2023 dated 29.11.2024 to the Devaswom Commissioner. In this regard true copy of report bearing No.M1.5049/2023 dated 29.11.2024 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Thrissur Group to the Devaswom Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). It is submitted that the entire issues arises out of certain factional disputes between the local residents. Ext R1(b) order was issued considering the interest of the devotees and to avoid further disputes between them. There is absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in issuing Exhibit R1(b) order dated 27.11.2024. In such circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6 th respondent Station House Officer and also the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and the additional 7 th respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6 th respondent Station House Officer and also the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and the additional 7 th respondent. 7. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any association of devotees other than the Temple Advisory Committee constituted as per the bye-laws (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, can have any activity whatsoever in temples, which are under the management of the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. 8. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. 9. Section 62A of the Act, inserted by Act 14 of 1990, deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 62A, all immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties. The provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. As per Section 62A, all immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties. The provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. As per Section 62B, all unassigned lands belonging to the Devaswom under the sole management of the Board shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to such lands. 10. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any other law for the time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and institutions under its management in accordance with the objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the institutions and to apply their funds and property for such purposes. As per sub-section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of the funds under their control, set apart such sum as they deem fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community, after providing adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be met from the said fund. 11. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff 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 major temples for the devotees. 12. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. 12. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1 st day of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 13. Section 76A of the Act deals with formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 76A, a committee for each temple in the name "Temple Advisory Committee’’ (name of the Temple)" may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2), the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3), the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice, prevailing, if any. 14. In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 1975 KLT 55 ] , in the context of Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which deals with the management of Devaswoms by Travancore Devaswom Board, a provision which is pari materia Section 68 of the said Act, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that under Section 31 of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. The law laid down in the said decision applies with equal force in matters relating to the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms by the Cochin Devaswom Board. 15. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ] , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs 21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee’s discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee’s partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 16. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 17. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [( 2013 (3) KLT 132 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 18. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 18. In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411] , in the context of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, under Chengannur Group, this Court held that, in view of the provisions under the Act and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom, the Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage. Position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court in Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55] . Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. The Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of ’fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. Since the deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 19. Since the deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 19. Viewed in the light of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that in exercise of the statutory duty under Section 73A of the Act, the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board has to take necessary steps to ensure that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple are performed promptly. The role of the 5 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, which is constituted as per the provisions contained in the bye-laws (Rules) framed under sub- section (3) of Section 76A of the Act, which consists of the devotees of that temple, is to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials in discharging their statutory duty, i.e., to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the said temple are performed promptly. The statutory framework of Section 76A of the Act and the bye-laws (Rules) framed sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Act, would make it explicitly clear that the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee or the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee cannot be granted permission to conduct ‘Desa Vilakku’ or and other religious rites or customary practices in Thalakkottukara Bhagavathy Temple or to collect any money from the devotees of Thalakkottukara Bhagavathy. Therefore, the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board ought not to have permitted the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee to conduct ‘Desa Vilakku’ in Thalakkottukara Bhagavathy Temple on 30.11.2024. 20. From the pleadings and materials on record, we notice that the persons behind the Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee and Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee are the same, which is evident from Ext.R1(a) request dated 23.11.2024 made before the President of the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent Board, it is stated that Ext.R1(b) order dated 27.11.2024 granting permission to the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee was issued, in order to ensure that there is no issues during the temple festival. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent Board, it is stated that Ext.R1(b) order dated 27.11.2024 granting permission to the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee was issued, in order to ensure that there is no issues during the temple festival. We notice that the above stand taken by the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board cannot be sustained in law, in view of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore. In case, the members of the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee or the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee, created an issue, which was likely to affect the proper conduct of the annual festival of the temple, by creating a law and order issue, the Board ought to have sought for police assistance, by approaching the concerned Station House Officer. 21. As noticed in paragraph 4 of the order of this Court dated 28.11.2024 in Ext.P4 notice published by the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee, the name of the said Committee is written as “Cochin Devaswom Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Kshetram Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee”. Since the temple in question is under the management of the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee or the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee cannot use the name of the said temple or the name of Cochin Devaswom Board in any notice published by the said Committees. In addition to that, the said Committees cannot collect any money from the devotees of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple, in connection with Desa Vilakku or any traditional rites or customary practices in the said temple. Any such collection of money from the devotees can only be made by the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, against sealed coupons issued by the concerned officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Any such collection of money from the devotees can only be made by the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple, against sealed coupons issued by the concerned officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials including the Devaswom Officer of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple to take necessary steps to ensure that the 3 rd respondent Thathwamasy Desa Vilakku Committee or the additional 7 th respondent Thathwamasy Ayyappan Vilakku Committee are not permitted to conduct Desa Vilakku in the said temple or collect any money from the devotees of Thalakottukara Bhagavathy, in connection with Desa Vilakku or any other religious rites or ceremonies in the temple. The Board shall ensure that no committee or association of devotees, other than the 4 th respondent Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 76A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, have activities in Thalakottukara Bhagavathy Temple.