The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.45 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, and the requirement for the suspension order to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

1. The petitioner claims the respondents' actions to be unconstitutional, and, failing the ground, to be otherwise without jurisdiction. He has consequently prayed for a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writs, to protect him against the aforesaid acts. Before adjudicating on the legal grounds, we would state the facts, that have caused the writ petition.

2. It is not denied that the petitioner, the Zamorin Rajah of Calicut had become the hereditary trustee of the Varakkal Devaswom in Katchery Amsom, Kozhikode Taluk, from May 2,1958. The Devaswom owns vacant lands in T. S. Nos. 221, 242 and 251 in Katchery Amsom, and they were at one time taken on lease by the Collector of Malabar on annual rent of Rs. 26-13-6, when they were being used for military purposes. After the expiry of the lease, the trustee, who was the petitioner's immediate predecessor, was informed of the intention to surrender the lands to the Devaswom, and about his making arrangements to assume their possession. The predecessor, after having taken possession, had granted a lease of the lands on January 27,1958, to his son for five years, The new lessee was to pay the rent of Rs. 36, and undertook to discharge the Government revenue and all other public charges. The writ petitioner, having earlier assumed charge as the trustee, received on July 2,1958, a communication from the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration, about the lease by his predecessor having been granted without permission and knowledge of the Administration, and to be against R.9 of the Rules framed under S.100(2)(m) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was further requested to report about his recognising the lease and his having taken any action. The petitioner's case is that thereafter he issued a registered notice to the lessee, informing him about the Administration's objections and asking the lessee to show cause against cancelling the lease. The petitioner's case further is that the lessee was in actual possession, that he replied claiming the objection to be without substance, and showing intention to defend his lease, that the Municipal dues on the lands had risen to Rs. 672-10-0, that the endowment had no funds available for meeting such heavy taxes, and that, under these circumstances, the petitioner thought it advisable to secure from the. lessee a fresh lease with enhanced rents. The correctness or otherwise of the case, should not be adjudicated now, because, should we not uphold the Constitutional objection, the adjudication would prejudice the final decision in the proceedings concerning certain charges, that have been framed against the writ petitioner under S.45 of the Act and are the subject-matter of investigation before the proper authorities. The aforesaid charges have been framed after the fresh lease had been executed by the petitioner in favour of the lessee of his predecessor on December 13, 1958. This lease carries the enhanced annual rent of Rs. 40, and the lessee is to moot all the public charges, the lease being continued for five years, as fixed by the predecessor trustee, from the date of the lease by him. The petitioner received what is marked Ext. B to the writ petition, and it purports to be the charge-sheet. Para.5 of this document states that action was being taken under S.45 of the Act, and the following charges had been framed:

"[a] That you, in the matter of grant of lease deed dated 13-12-1958, to Sri A. K. Nedungadi, have committed breach of trust in respect of the temple properties, known as Warakkal Maidan and Race

Course Grounds", which amounts to an act of misfeasance in respect of the trust;

[b] That you, as hereditary trustee of the temple, are guilty of improper dealing with the temple properties referred to above, in the matter of the grant of the aforesaid lease deed;

[c] That in spite of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner