Radhakrishnan, J.

Ext.P10 order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department dated 10.11.2006 is under challenge in W.P.C.No.30254 of 2006. Commissioner by that order removed the petitioners therein from the Trustee Board of T.T.K. Devaswom on the ground that they are ineligible to continue as non hereditary trustees in the Board since their appointments were in violation of Ext.P11 guidelines dated 18.05.2004 issued for the selection of non hereditary trustees for temples under the control of H.R & C.E. Commissioner has taken the view that evidence produced by the fourth respondent and the report of the Assistant Commissioner would show that the petitioners are disqualified to be appointed as trustees. Consequently a declaration was made to that effect. Further it was ordered that the vacancies should be renotified in accordance with the guidelines and fresh selection be made.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext P10 order is illegal and the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and no reasons exist to disqualify the petitioners. Further it was stated that petitioner is not a politician and in any view of the matter Ext.P11 guidelines does not completely bar the appointment of active politicians as non hereditary trustees of a temple managed by H.R. & C.E. Counsel submits that all these facts were taken into consideration when Ext.P3 order was issued on 25.07.2005 and that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review that order. Counsel submitted that Ext. P3 order was validly passed under Section 39 of the H.R. & C.E. Act and the non hereditary trustees can continue in office as per a scheme for a period of three years from the date of the first meeting of the committee.

3. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the Commissioner has got the power to disqualify the petitioners after having found that they are not eligible to be appointed as non hereditary trustees being active politicians. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner was only correcting a mistake so as to strictly follow the guidelines.

4. Sri Kylasanatha Pillai, counsel appearing for the third respondent supported the contentions of the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader Sri Sandesh Raja submitted that the Commissioner is justified in issuing Ext.P10 order since report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.09.2006 states that the petitioners are active politicians. Counsel further submitted that power has been conferred on the Commissioner to pass Ext.P10 order since the administration of all religious institutions/endowments shall be subject to his superintendence and control and hence he has got the power to issue Ext.P10 order.

5. Ext P3 is the order passed by the Commissioner on 25.07.2005 appointing the petitioners as non hereditary trustees of the Devaswom. Notification dated 04.07.2005 was published inviting applications for the post of non-hereditary trustees. 14.07.2005 were the last date for submitting applications. Pursuant to the notification 28 persons applied including the petitioners. Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the eligibility of the applicants and he submitted a report on 21.07.2005. Based on that report, the Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 39 of the H.R & C.E Act appointed the petitioners as non hereditary trustees of the Devaswom and they are in office now.

6. The fourth respondent, after an year, filed Ext P4 complaint before the Commissioner on 10.07.2006 alleging that the petitioners are active politicians and therefore are not entitled to continue as members of the Board of Trustees. Based on the complaint an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner who submitted Ext. P5 report dated 22.09.2006 stating that allegations made in the representation were found to be genuine and recommended for the removal of the petitioners from the Board of Trustees.