Temple Managed By Trust, Administrator Appointed By HC: Kerala High Court Declines Plea To Let Devaswom Board Take Charge Of Oachira Temple

The Temple, as of now, is under the management of the Oachira Parabrahma Trust. A suit was filed before the Additional District Court – I, Kollam for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple. A preliminary decree was passed in the case directing the parties to file a draft scheme for the administration of the temple and its assets and institutions within 3 months. In this decree, it was mentioned that the g the administration of the temple and its institutions will continue as per the present by-laws until the scheme is framed. This decree was challenged before the High Court earlier but it was dismissed.

Subsequently, another application was filed before the High Court, which was taken to the Supreme Court by a special leave petition seeking an order directing the appointment of an Administrator to conduct an election to the Pothu Bharana Samithi of the temple.

The Supreme Court allowed the petition, finding that it was necessary to conduct the election under the supervision of an Administrator. Accordingly, the High Court appointed a former judge as the Administrative Head/ Administrator. The Administrator issued a notice regarding the preliminary steps taken for conducting an election for the administration and management of the temple and its allied institutions. The notice is also sought to be quashed in the instant writ petition.

The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.  said that by the order of the Civil Court, the administration of the temple has to be governed by the existing by-laws until a scheme for the administration of the temple and its institutions is made. This order was not interfered by the High Court when it was challenged in an appeal. The Court said that therefore, the petitioner could not file a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Devaswom Board to enquire into the administration of the temple, call for periodical accounts and take over its administration.

In the matter of the notice issued by the Administrator, the Court said that the Administrator was appointed by the High Court subsequent to the direction of the Supreme Court, and the petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the notice issued by the Administrator regarding preliminary steps taken for conducting the election.

Accordingly, the writ was dismissed.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates A. Rajasimhan, Vykhari K. U., Anas Ali M. M., Eesa Farhan P.

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates S. Rajmohan (Sr. GP), G. Santhosh Kumar (SC, TDB)

Case No: WP(C) 5853 of 2025

Case Title: Syamlal v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 274