JUDGMENT : K.V. Jayakumar, J. This Contempt petition is filed by Sri. N. Prakash alleging that respondents 1 to 3 have violated Annexure A1 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 34734 of 2024 dated 25.11.2024. 2. Sri. N. Prakash, the party in person submitted that the respondents, who are the officers of the Cochin Devaswom Board, have committed contempt by inviting a non-Hindu inside the Temple premises on 04.03.2026 during the Uthram Thirunal Maholsavam in the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. 3. Sri. Prakash submitted that the respondents are duty-bound to implement the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment and to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in order No. M5.12853/2024 dated 18.11.2024 issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board and mentioned in Annexure-A1 judgment. 4. According to the petitioner, Annexure-A3, pendrive and Annexure-A4 photograph would indicate that the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment were flouted and therefore they are liable to be proceeded under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willfully violating the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment. 5. The petitioner further submits that after placing Annexure-A2 board in front of the temple stating that ‘entry only to Hindus’, the respondents had invited a non-Hindu inside the temple premises. 6. In response, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, Sri. K.P. Sudheer submitted that the contempt petition is not maintainable and the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment are not violated by the officers of the Cochin Devaswom Board. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board. 8. Before we proceed to discuss the factual aspects of the matter, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portions of Annexure-A1 judgment. “17. As evident from Ext.R1(e) Board order dated 18.11.2024, the 1 st respondent Board has taken a decision, whereby the 3 rd respondent Devaswom Officer, Thripunithura, has been directed to install a board in terms of Rule 3(a) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, in front of Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura. Ext.R1(e)Board order dated 18.11.2024 read thus; 18. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, no person shall enter a place of public worship with any footwear. Ext.R1(e)Board order dated 18.11.2024 read thus; 18. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, no person shall enter a place of public worship with any footwear. Similarly, as per clause (d) of Rule 3 a drunken person shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in a place of public worship. It is for the 1 st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the prohibitions contained in Rules 4 and 3(d) of the said Rules in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, which is under the management of the Board, subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act . In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board and also respondents 2 and 3 to ensure strict compliance of the prohibitions contained in Rules 4 and 3(d) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules and also the directions contained in Ext.R1(d) order dated 10.10.2024 and Ext.R1(e) order dated 18.11.2024 in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura, in letter and spirit.” 9. In the operative portion of the judgment, this Court had issued two directions: a) The Board and its officers are directed to comply with Ext. R1(e) order dated 18.11.2024 in the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura, in letter and spirit. b) The Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials are directed to ensure strict compliance of Rules 4 and 3(d) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules. 11. Rule 3(d) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules prohibits the entry of a drunken person inside the temple. Rule 4 mandates that a person shall enter the temple after taking a bath and removing the chappals. 12. A similar issue arose before us in Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala , 2026 KHC 91 , wherein, this Court observed that the entry of a Christian Priest inside the Temple as permitted by the Thanthri and the Devaswom Board officials cannot be considered as a misconduct. In Sanil Narayanan (supra), this Court observed that a guest or invitee is to be considered as God This Court in Sanil Narayanan (supra) observed in paragraph 38 as under: “38. In Sanil Narayanan (supra), this Court observed that a guest or invitee is to be considered as God This Court in Sanil Narayanan (supra) observed in paragraph 38 as under: “38. Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is evident that two Christian priests entered the temple premises and offered prayers not as members of the general public, but strictly in their capacity as invitees and guests. In other words, their entry into the temple was a permissive entry, expressly authorised by the Thanthri of the temple. It is well settled that the Thanthri occupies a pivotal and sacrosanct position in the temple hierarchy and is traditionally regarded as the spiritual custodian and ritual authority - often described as the father of the deity. An entry permitted by the Thanthri, in the capacity of an Athithi (guest) or a special invitee, is fundamentally distinct from an entry claimed as a matter of right. Such a permissive and ceremonial entry, in our considered view, cannot be construed as a violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, or the established rites, usages and customs governing the temple.” In the instant case, we find that a non-Hindu was invited to the temple as a guest and is interacting with some persons in a room. After considering the submissions and a careful perusal of the records, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case of contempt. The contempt case is closed.