Ramachandran Nair, J.
Petitioner is Palakkattussery Sevana Samajam represented by its President. They are mainly concerned with the affairs of Sree Emmoor Bhagavathy Temple, Kallekulangara in Palakkad Taluk as well as the Thrippallur and Thiruvara Temples in Alathur Taluk and their assets and properties. Formerly a dispute was raised by the then Palakkattussery Sekhari Varma Valiya Raja claiming that the temple and the assets are all private institutions, which was finally settled as per Ext.P1 . By the result of the same, the Board's right of supervision has been accepted. Presently the grievance raised is in the following circumstances :-
When a final scheme was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 58(1) of the Act as per the proceedings Ext.P2, it was challenged by the Valiya Raja in O.P.No. 6196/2003. That was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment. According to the petitioner, the scheme is extremely faulty. Various examples have been pointed out in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the writ petition.
2. Ext.P4 is the petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner seeking for taking measures for a proper administration of the temple. Certain modifications have also been requested for in the scheme.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board has filed a detailed statement. It is mainly pointed out therein that the petitioners have got an effective remedy under Section 58(6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner for modification or cancellation of the existing scheme. It is also stated that Ext.P2 order rendered by this court in the two writ petitions has attained finality as the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge against the same on 10.3.2008. There was a proceedings before the Civil Court which also has attained finality as evident from Ext.R1(a) viz; the judgment of the District Court, Palakkad in A.S.No.47/2009.
4. We heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ranjith Thampan, Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board Sri.K.R.Sunil.
5. According to Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the scheme was never notified and therefore this court will be justified in holding the view that the scheme is not at all operational. As regards the said aspect, the learned Standing Counsel submitted before us a copy of the notification published in the Kerala Gazette whereby the scheme has been notified. Therefore, it will have to be prima facie accepted that the scheme has been notified. We are not going into the legality of the same.
6. One of the points raised by Sri.Ranjith Thampan is that the Executive Officer has been functioning and has been in administration of the temples for more than twenty years. Various points have been raised by the learned Senior Counsel on the requirement to have a proper scheme, which is the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that at any rate even if the merits of the contentions in the petition have to be gone into, it should be by the statutory authority concerned, namely the Deputy Commissioner under Section 58(6) of the Act in question and therefore the petitioner may have to be relegated to the said remedy. It is further submitted that Ext.P4 in the form in which it is filed requires certain amendments including to the title.
7. The learned counsel Sri.Mohanakannan submitted that if this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter, then the present status quo may be allowed to continue as according to him there is an attempt to appoint non-hereditary trustees.
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we issue the following directions :
The petitioner will refile Ext.P4 in the proper form before the second respondent within a period of three weeks along with a certified copy of the judgment who will entertain the same and hold enquiry and pass appropriate final orders within a period of six months thereafter. All the parties will be heard duly. Till such orders are passed, the present status quo as regards the administration of the Temples will continue.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE sv.