After death of Hereditary Trustee continued appointment of executive officer not warranted.

The petitioner prays for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 21.5.2002 of the first respondent, to quash the same as null and void and to direct the second respondent to remove the third respondent from the post of Executive Officer appointed to Sri Nacharammal Kattalai, Vandiyoor attached to Arulmigu Kallalagar Tirukkoil, Madurai and allow the writ petitioner to function as hereditary trustee in pursuance of the Scheme already framed for the Kattalai.

2. The specific endowment attached to the third respondent-temple is governed by the scheme framed in O.A.No.3 of 1967 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai. The specific endowment and the administration vests in the hereditary trustees comprising of two branches, one branch represented by Anandham Pillai, the writ petitioner, and the other branch represented by the tenth respondent.

3. While the said Anandham Pillai was the trustee, there were certain allegations of mismanagement against him. The Commissioner, by his order dated 24.6.1978, found that some of the irregularities complained against him were substantiated and after holding that the said trustee was guilty of certain irregularities, he considered that the appointment of an Executive Officer under Section 45(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act will pave the way for ensuring better administration of the Kattalai. Accordingly, an Executive Officer was ordered to be appointed to the endowment. Since then, the Executive Officer has been in charge of the administration of the Kattalai.

4. While so, the petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner on 19.10.1999 seeking the removal of the Executive Officer on the ground that the Kattalai was not being properly administered by successive Executive Officers and that therefore, the appointment of the Executive Officer ought to be set aside. By order dated 26.4.2000, the said request was rejected by the Commissioner. A further revision was filed before the Government and the Secretary, H.R. & C.E., Department, by order dated 21.5.2002, confirmed the order of the Commissioner. Hence, the writ petition.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal representatives have been brought on record.

6. Mr.S.Silambanan, appearing for the petitioners, brought to my notice a series of audit reports in respect of Faslis 1391 to 1408 and referred to many of the observations by the Audit Officer regarding the alleged mismanagement by the respective Executive Officers during the relevant period. According to him, the Executive Officers have not at all taken any interest in the administration and the Audit Report has pointed out several defects in the functioning of the Kattalai. However, the authorities, without considering any of the materials, have simply rejected his request, without performing their statutory duty in a proper manner.

7. Learned Special Government Pleader contends that the materials relied upon before this Court were never placed before the authorities for consideration. Whatever materials which were placed before them were duly considered and even if there are any additional materials, it is certainly open to this Court to remit the matter to the authorities for re-consideration in the light of any fresh materials which may be placed for consideration by the petitioner.

8. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, appearing for the tenth respondent, namely, the second branch of trustees, contends that while he agrees with the petitioner's contention that the Executive Officer may be removed in view of the unsatisfactory functioning of the Executive Officers, the prayer of the writ petitioner to the effect that he should be given the right to function as the hereditary trustee pursuant to the scheme cannot be accepted, having regard to the fact that the second branch of trustees represented by him have equal rights to be in