Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple

“Once a Scheme is Framed Under Section 58, Administration Must Be in Accordance With It” –  In a significant judgment Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by one P.K. Satheesan claiming hereditary trusteeship over Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple in Palakkad, and upheld the legality of orders passed by the Malabar Devaswom Board and the State Government appointing non-hereditary trustees and an Executive Officer for the temple. The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, in WP(C) No. 1552 of 2025, held that the temple is governed by a binding statutory scheme framed in 1948 and not by the general provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (HR&CE Act) concerning hereditary trustees.

“Appointment of Non-Hereditary Trustees Under a Statutory Scheme Does Not Require Compliance With Section 39(2)”

At the heart of the dispute was whether the appointment of non-hereditary trustees and an Executive Officer was legal, given the petitioner’s claim of being the hereditary trustee and his assertion that the temple was private and not notified under the HR&CE Act. The petitioner challenged the revisional order of the State Government (Exhibit P7) passed by the Joint Secretary, alleging it was without jurisdiction and vitiated by non-compliance with the twin requirements of notice and enquiry under Section 39(2) of the Act.

However, the High Court clarified that the temple administration was governed by a scheme framed under Section 58 of the 1951 Act (originally under the 1926 Act) as per BO No. 3896 dated 07.10.1948. The scheme had attained finality and had not been challenged by any party. Therefore, the Court observed:

“Now, the petitioner cannot contend the non-compliance of the twin conditions stipulated in Section 39(2) of the Act, in view of the dictum laid down in K. Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala.” [Para 53]

The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that appointment of trustees and officers made in accordance with a statutory scheme of administration stands on a distinct footing and is insulated from the procedural requirements under Section 39.

“Petitioner Suppressed Material Facts; Created Private Trust Despite Temple Being Statutorily Notified”

The Bench took serious note of the petitioner's conduct, observing that he had suppressed the existence of the 1948 scheme and misrepresented the temple as a private, unnotified temple managed by a family trust (Padinjarapattu Malamakkavu Temple Trust, registered in 2008). The Court was categorical in holding:

“The petitioner has suppressed the fact that there was a scheme for the administration of the Temple and claimed that it is a private temple not notified under Section 38 of the Act.” [Para 55]

Further, the Court noted that the temple had been notified under Section 38 as early as 15.06.1994, under Serial No. 891, making it a public religious institution within the jurisdiction of the Malabar Devaswom Board.

“Executive Officer's Appointment Was Urgent and Necessary Given 34 Years of Maladministration”

Extensive findings were made regarding the rampant mismanagement of temple affairs. The Court noted serious allegations including absence of accounts, audit reports, misappropriation by power-of-attorney holders, and evasion of oversight. The Devaswom Board had, since 2005, acted upon such irregularities, culminating in the impugned order appointing an Executive Officer.

“For the last 34 years, the administration of the public temple...was carried out in violation of the law, without maintaining any accounts or vouchers and in gross violation of the scheme for administration.” [Para 31 quoting Respondent's Counter]

The Court held that the appointment of the Executive Officer was not only permissible under Clause (4) of the scheme, but also imperative for restoring lawful and transparent management.

“Joint Secretary Empowered to Act for Government Under Section 99 – No Infirmity in Revisional Order”

One of the main challenges raised by the petitioner was that Ext.P7 revisional order was passed not by the Secretary but by the Joint Secretary, and thus lacked jurisdiction. The Court, however, rejected this argument, holding that:

“Section 99 of the Act does not specifically state which Officer of the State Government is empowered to exercise the powers... Therefore, we are unable to accept the said contention.” [Para 49]

The Court further noted that the State Government can act through its authorised officers, and such delegation of administrative duties is both lawful and routine.

Petitioner Had No Locus – Not Nominated Under Clause 3 of Scheme

The Devaswom Board submitted that under the scheme, the managing trustee is to be nominated by the Board and the Executive Officer is the representative of the temple. The petitioner was not a nominee under Clause 3 and had no statutory right to claim control.

The Court upheld this view, noting:

“Since the writ petitioner was not nominated as managing trustee, he has no right to represent the temple.” [Para 20]

The petitioner’s claim of hereditary trusteeship was, in the Court’s view, unsupported by any official recognition, and in fact, contradicted by the very statutory scheme binding upon the temple.

No Arbitrariness, No Illegality – Court Refuses to Interfere Under Article 226

Rejecting the petitioner's invocation of Articles 25 and 26, the Court held that the action of the State and Devaswom Board was squarely within statutory limits and in furtherance of protecting religious endowments from mismanagement. Noting the repeated litigations filed by the petitioner over the years to resist legitimate oversight, the Court concluded:

“Exts. P1 and P7 orders... are passed by competent authorities strictly in accordance with the scheme... We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders.” [Para 57]

Date of Decision: 05/01/2026