Ramachandran Nair, J. The substantial challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 and P4 orders which are passed by respectively by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner and in appeal by the first respondent Commissioner.

2. The question involved is whether the second respondent Deputy Commissioner has the power to declare a religious institution as a public temple defined under Section 6(17) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (Madras) [for short 'HR & CE Act'], which according to the petitioners is lacking under Section 57 of the HR & CE Act.

3. The first petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Panayankulangara Bhagavathy Temple in Chavakkad Taluk which is owned by a family known as Manjulavil family. The second petitioner is his brother as well as his power of attorney holder. According to the prevailing system, the senior most male member of the family is the hereditary trustee. It is their case that the temple is situated in the property of the Manjulavil tharavad which is kept as a common property and remain unpartitioned.

4. Adversities have been caused due to the implementation of the Land Reforms Act, as the family lost many of their properties. The situation also led to the encroachment of temple properties by some of their neighbours. Even daily poojas were affected. The second respondent, who was a Journalist in Calicut returned to the family and he along with other family members renovated the temple.

5. It is submitted that the temple is not a notified religious institution under the HR & CE Act. The present controversy started in the year 1998 when the second respondent passed an order to take into custody the bhandarams of the temple. This was challenged in O.P.No.24229/98 before this Court. The petitioners therein were directed to approach the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 57 of the HR & CE Act, who is having the power to inquire into and decide the dispute whether the institution is a religious institution.

6. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking to declare that the temple is owned by Manjulavil family by filing O.A.No.19/2003. Ext.P1 is the interlocutory application filed in that proceedings seeking for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE, Palakkad to produce the entire files relating to the notification, if any, in support of the temple but, no orders were passed on the same and the files were not summoned. Various documents mentioned in para.5 of the writ petition have been produced before the Deputy Commissioner on the side of the petitioners to establish that the temple property was not partitioned and it is a family temple. It is stated that ignoring the voluminous evidence, Ext.P2 order has been passed by the second respondent and the appeal filed has also been rejected as per Ext.P4. Ext.P3 is the copy of the appeal memorandum.

7. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.P.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent Shri P.B.Sahasranaman, learned thcounsel appearing for 4th, 5 and 9threspondents Shri C.E.Unnikrishnan and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board Shri V.Krishna Menon.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners elaborated his contentions by submitting the following: Firstly, it is contended that Ext.P2 order is without any jurisdiction as the Officer, who has passed the order was not functioning as the Deputy Commissioner at the relevant date. He was already promoted as a Special Officer from the post of Deputy Commissioner. Under Section 57 of HR & CE Act, the power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner alone. It is also submitted that as Section 57 is not one conferring an administrative power but a quasi-judicial power, such a power cannot be exercised by a person like the Special Officer. The Officer herein is termed as Special Officer-in-charge of Deputy Commissioner. While contending that the said charge arrangement is not one enabling the Special Officer to