K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This Writ Petition is instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners state that they are the devotees of Velorvattom Sree Mahadeva Temple, Cherthala. According to the petitioners, Velorvattom Sree Mahadeva Temple is one of the few temples of the State with two Nalambalams and two flag masts. The said Temple is one among the 108 Shiva Temples named in the ‘Shivalaya Stotram’. The petitioners state that about 50 years ago, the devotees of the Temple collected funds and renovated the Temple. For the purpose of renovation, a committee consisting of 15 members was formed. The petitioners contend that the said committee took charge of the administration of the Temple and continued for several years. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the committee members refused to conduct an election or to induct any new persons into it. Now, the 15-member committee has been reduced to a six-member committee. The respondents 7 to 12 are the remaining members of the said committee.

3. It is further contended that several complaints were forwarded by the devotees to the Devaswom Board against the undemocratic way of conducting the temple administration by the present committee. According to the petitioners, no action has been taken by the Devaswom Board. It is with these assertions that the petitioners approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

                  “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent 1 to 4 to conduct an inquiry prior to the assumption as contemplated under Section 38 and assume the management of the 5th respondent temple forthwith;

                  (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct an inquiry into the mismanagement of the 5th respondent temple by the respondents 6 to 12;

                  (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct election of the managing committee of the 5th respondent temple and entrust the administration of the temple to the newly elected committee;

                  (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider the Exhibits P2 representation filed by the petitioners and other devotees;”

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 7 and 8, who are the President and Secretary of Velorvattom Sree Mahadeva Temple Bharana Samithi, it is stated that Azhvanchery Thamprakkal entrusted the management of the Temple to Uranma Devaswom Board, a society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Registration Act (‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) by virtue of Ext. R7(a) license deed 16.07.1970. Uranma Devaswom Board is a society formed by Ooralans of the various Uranma Devaswoms throughout the State. Ext. R7(b) is the true copy of the Memorandum of Association of the Uranma Devaswom Board.

5. It is further stated that pursuant to Ext. R7(a) deed, the Board is in absolute management of the affairs of the Temple. For the effective management of the Temple and its properties, a committee of local worshipers is formed to assist the Uranma Devaswom Board. Thus, the Velorvattom Sree Mahadeva Temple Bharana Samithi is formed by the Uranma Devaswom Board. It is further stated in the counter that respondents 7 and 8 are the present office bearers of the Samithi and they are managing the affairs of the Temple in that capacity. It is further stated in the counter that Azhvancherry Thamprakkal and Uranma Devaswom Board are necessary parties in this proceeding. It is contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the reliefs claimed therein cannot be granted.

6. The respondents 7 and 8 contended that the committee is presently managing the affairs of the temple satisfactorily, and there is no mismanagement as stated in the Writ Petition. Further, it is stated that some properties were purchased in the name of the deities, and the copies of the title deeds were produced as Exts. R7(c) to R7(k).

7. On the basis of the contentions of the Bharana Samithi, Krishnan Namboothiri of Azhvancherry Mana and the Uranma Devaswom Board were impleaded as additional respondents.

8. The respondents 13 and 14 (the Additional respondents) filed a counter affidavit, contending that Velorvattom Sree Mahadeva Temple, Cherthala, belongs to Azhvancherry Thamprakkal. The senior-most member of the family of the Thamprakkal is the Ooralan of the Temple. It is denied in the counter that the Temple is a Kudumba Kshethram. The renovation of the Temple was done by the committee. It is further stated in the counter that Azhvancherry Raman Valiya Thamprakkal entrusted the management of the Temple to the Uranma Devaswom Board, a society registered under the Act, by virtue of a licence deed dated 16.07.1970. As per the entrustment, the Board is in the management of the affairs of the Temple. As per the licence deed, the Board is only an agent of the trustee.

9. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, Sri. Krishnan Unni, the Senior Counsel, as instructed by Sri. Thareeq Anwar, the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 and Adv. Nivetitha Prem V., the learned counsel for the respondents 13 and 14.

10. This Writ Petition is preferred, alleging that Velorvattom temple is a private temple renovated by a committee consisting of 15 members. After the renovation work was over, the said committee continued to administer the affairs of the Temple. The main allegation is that the present administration of the committee is not proper and not in a democratic way. They are not conducting any election to the committee, nor are any new members being inducted to the committee.

11. Ext.R7(a) would indicate that Velorvattom Sree Mahadeva Temple, Cherthala, belonged to Azhvancherry Thamprakkal. The said Thamprakkal had executed Ext.R7(a) licence deed No.132/1970 of SRO, Ernakulam, dated 16.07.1970. They entrusted the management of the temple to a registered society, namely; Uranma Devaswom Board. Ext.R7(b) is the copy of the Memorandum of Association of Uranma Devaswom Board dated 05.06.1957. Exts.R7(c) to R7(k) are the title deeds which would prove that certain properties were purchased in the name of the deity by the Uranma Devaswom Board. A committee is selected from the local residents to assist the Uranma Devaswom Board for the administration of the temple.

12. On a careful consideration of the pleadings, materials placed on record, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is filed on a misconception of facts. From the records, we find that the Ooralan of the Temple had executed a license deed entrusting the management of the Temple to a registered society namely Uranma Devaswom Board. The role of the present society is only to assist the Uranma Devaswom Board. Therefore, the allegations in the Writ petition that the Temple is administered by the society in their individual capacity appears to be incorrect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief claimed in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

The Writ Petition fails, and it is dismissed.