JUDGMENT : K. V. Jayakumar, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “?) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order commanding the 1st respondent to restrain from appointing the respondents 7 to 10 as members of the non-hereditary trustee board of Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple, Kunjathur.P.O, Manjeshswar, Kasaragod as they are ineligible pursuant to Exhibit P5; (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P4 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.” 2. The petitioner, Sri. B. Harshavardhan Shetty states that he is a devotee of Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple, Manjeshwar, Kasaragod. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Malabar Devaswom Board is proceeding to appoint respondents 7 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees of Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple without properly considering the complaints filed by him and other persons against their appointment, pointing out the fact that all of them are active workers of CPI(M) and CPI. The learned counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent, Malabar Devaswom Board had invited applications for constituting non-hereditary trustee board of the Udayawara Sree Daivangalu Temple. Earlier, the petitioner and other devotees raised Exts.P2 and P3 complaints dated 21.02.2023 and 01.06.2023 against the party respondents for their selection as non-hereditary trustees. Even without considering the complaints, party respondents were appointed as non-hereditary trustees. The term of two years of the party respondents had expired. Now, the party respondents again submitted applications for the post of non-hereditary trustees. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the 5th respondent, Inspector, Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioner and others pointed out the mismanagement, malpractices and misuse of funds by the party respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 within a time frame and to restrain the 1st respondent from appointing the party respondents as they are ineligible pursuant to Ext.P5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents 7 to 10 are disqualified as per Clause 3(f) and (g) of the notice dated 22.10.2025 of the Malabar Devaswom Board, Kasaragod Division. Respondents 7 to 10 are active politicians and office bearers of the political party 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents 7 to 10 are disqualified as per Clause 3(f) and (g) of the notice dated 22.10.2025 of the Malabar Devaswom Board, Kasaragod Division. Respondents 7 to 10 are active politicians and office bearers of the political party 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the area committee of Malabar Devaswom Board has not considered the objections and the Board is going to appoint respondents 7 to 10 as non-hereditary trustees, violating the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for the sake of brevity, ‘the Madras HR & CE Act’) and the directives issued by this Court in Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board , 2024 KHC 953 5. In response, Smt. R. Ranjanie, learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, would submit that the appointment of the non-hereditary trustees in the temple would be conducted strictly in accordance with the Madras HR & CE Act, and the directives issued by this Court from time to time. 6. We have heard the submissions of Sri. R. Umasankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. R. Ranjanie, learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board and perused the records. 7. The principal grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that the respondent/Board is trying to appoint non-hereditary trustees, violating the relevant statutory provisions and disregarding directions issued by this Court. According to the petitioner, respondents 7 to 10 are disqualified for appointment under Clauses 3(f) and 3(g) of the notice. 8. Clause 3 of the notice clearly stipulates the disqualifications for the appointment as non-hereditary trustees. The aforesaid clause reads thus: “3. Persons having any or all of the following disqualifications are not eligible for appointment. They need not apply. (a) Persons who have been sentenced by a criminal court for any offense not involving moral turpitude to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, unless such sentence has been commuted or commuted to a term of six months or less, or the Government has not pardoned such offence or the Government has not ordered that such sentence shall not constitute a disqualification. (b) Person who have been adjudicated as insolvent or applied to be adjudicated as such. (c) Persons belongings to any Kattalayis previously or of any specific endowment attached to it. (b) Person who have been adjudicated as insolvent or applied to be adjudicated as such. (c) Persons belongings to any Kattalayis previously or of any specific endowment attached to it. (d) Persons who have previously been trustees of any temple and have been removed or dismissed by the Board of Trustees or any authority constituted under the Act. (e) Persons who are mentally ill, mentally or physically disabled or infirm, which renders them unfit to perform the functions of a Trustee. (f) Persons engaged in busy profession. (g) Active political workers and persons holding official positions in political parties (h) Persons who were encroached Devaswom land/ Building (i) Respondent/opposing party in a lawsuit in which the Devaswom is interested. (j) Those who have filed a lawsuit against the Devaswom.” 9. Clause 3(f) would disqualify persons who are busy with their work or profession. Clause 3(g) would make it clear that active politicians and persons holding official posts in political parties are disqualified for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. 10. Ext.P2 to P4 are the complaints submitted by the petitioner, wherein he has stated about the political background of respondents 7 to 10. It is also stated that, if such persons are appointed, they may not get time to actively indulge in the activities of the temple. 11. In Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala , ( 2022 (6) KLT 388 ) , this Court observed that Persons who are busy with their employment, office bearers of political parties, active politicians or those indulging in active participation in the activities of a political party cannot aspire appointment as non-hereditary trustee of the temple and the Commissioner has to take necessary steps to ensure that any appointment made as nonhereditary trustee of the temples under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board is strictly in terms of the disqualification and eligibility clauses. The alleged disqualifications (including political activity) are matters of fact to be adjudicated by the appointing authority with an opportunity of hearing. 12. In Muraleedharan M. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court issued directions in the matter of appointment of non - hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Relevant portion of paragraph 154 of Muraleedharan M. (supra) is extracted hereunder: “154. 12. In Muraleedharan M. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court issued directions in the matter of appointment of non - hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Relevant portion of paragraph 154 of Muraleedharan M. (supra) is extracted hereunder: “154. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board on the above aspect, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions in the matter of appointment of non - hereditary trustees in Devaswoms / Temples, which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in order to ensure a fair and transparent mechanism for such appointment, taking into consideration the requirements of the provisions contained in the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , till rules are made for that purpose under the said Act. (i) xxxxxxxx (ii) Once applications are received, the details of the applicants shall be exhibited on the notice board of the Devaswom / Temple, at a prominent place, so as to enable the devotees to point out the disqualifications, if any, of any of the applicants, by submitting written objections before the 2nd respondent Commissioner or the concerned Area Committee, as the case may be, furnishing therewith their name, address and mobile number. Those objections shall also be dealt with appropriately by the 2nd respondent Commissioner or the concerned Area Committee, as the case may be, after obtaining individual reports on those complaints from the concerned Divisional Inspector. (iii) In the case of Devaswoms / Temples in which appointment of non - hereditary trustees is made by the concerned Area Committee, the evaluation of the applicants with reference to the report of the concerned Divisional Inspector shall be made by a Committee consisting of a member of the Area Committee to be nominated by its Chairman, the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the hereditary trustee of the Devaswom / Temple. In the absence of a hereditary trustee, the Tantri or Melsanthi of the Devaswom / Temple shall be a member of that Committee. In the absence of a hereditary trustee, the Tantri or Melsanthi of the Devaswom / Temple shall be a member of that Committee. The said Committee shall have a comparative assessment of the applicants with specific reference to the eligibilities and disqualifications provided in the guidelines dated 18/05/2004 issued by the Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department and the said assessment shall be the basis for the appointment of non - hereditary trustees by the concerned Area Committee. (iv) xxxxxxxx” 13. Having carefully considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, and the records placed before us, it is evident that Clause 3(a) and (j) of the notice dated 22.10.2025 clearly prohibits certain persons from appointing as non-hereditary trustees. Clauses 3(f) and (g) specifically prohibit persons who are professionally engaged individuals, people who are busy with their profession and active politicians and office bearers of the political party. In view of the directions issued in Muraleedharan (supra), we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to consider the objections in detail before taking a decision and shall scrupulously verify the veracity of the allegations raised by the petitioner and thereupon pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Board shall issue notice to the affected parties and the petitioner and afford them a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking a decision with regard to the appointment of non-hereditary trustees. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.