Dy.Commissioner has jurisdiction to modify the schemes framed by courts.

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.

Heard the learned senior counsel and Special G. P. for the parties.

2. Following are the facts and events leading to the filing of these appeals :-

The appellant is one and the same in both these appeals. For convenience, we will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petitions. The Writ Appeal No. 122/87 is filed challenging the order dated 29-10-1986 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5121/82. In Writ Appeal No. 141/97 the order dated 17-2-1997 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 2082/97 is challenged.

3. In Writ Petition No. 512 l/82 the prayer was to quash the order of the second respondent dated 25-6-1982 made in O.A. No. 95/78 proposing to modify the scheme framed by this Court in A.S. No. 175 of 1934 in relation to Arulmighu Devarajaswami Temple, Kancheepuram, and to direct the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry on merits with regard to the contentions raised before him in O.A. No. 95 of 1978. In Writ Petition No. 2082/97 the petitioner challenged the validity of Sections 64(5) and 118 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959).

4. Application in O.A. No. 99/61 was filed on 12-12-1961 under Section 64(3) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short, the Act 1959) to modify the existing scheme of the said temple as framed in A.S. No. 175 of 1934. A notice was issued on 3-3-1965 to Thathachariar and also Thenkalais indicating the proposal for modification. Writ Petition No. 2469 of I969 was filed by Thathacharis challenging the proposed modification questioning the very maintainability of such proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed on merits by the order dated 28-8-1969, On 2-3-1970 Thathacharis filed O.A. No. 109 of 1966 under Section 63 of the Act for declaration that they were hereditary trustees. The order of dismissal of the writ petition made in W.P. No. 2469/69 was questioned in Writ Appeal No. 91/70 which was also dismissed on 6-9-1970. Even the petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in S.C.P. No. 213 of 1971 was dismissed on 22-10-1971.

5. The second respondent on 3-10-1971 terminated the suo motu proceedings taken in O.A. No. 99 of 1961 as not maintainable under Section 64 of the Act. Thenkalais preferred appeal petition No. l53 of 1974 to the first respondent, who remanded the application to the second respondent taking a view that the application was maintainable, and that the same should be heard on merits and disposed of. It is thereafter the application came to be numbered as O.A. No. 95 of 1978, and the order proposing the modification came to be passed on 25-6-1982. It is this order which was assailed in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 1982. The sad writ petition was dismissed by the order passed on 29-10-1986 which has resulted in Writ Appeal No. 122 of 1987.

6. Writ Petition No. 6722 of 1986 was filed directing the respondents to hold election for filling up the vacancies to the post of Honorary trustees from among the members of the eastern and western branches of Sri Kotikanyakadanam Thathadesikar family in respect of the said temple. We do not propose to go into the details of this writ petition although W.P. No. 5121/82 and W.P. No. 6722/86 were disposed of by the learned single Judge by the common order dated 29-10-1986 inasmuch as Writ Appcal No. 121 of 1987 filed against the common order dated 29-10-1986 in W.P. No. 6722 of 1986, was already dismissed on 5-3-97 on the submission that it was not pressed.

7. As already noticed above, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2082 of 1997 to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring Sections 64(5) and 118 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (T. N. Act 22 of 1959) as ultra vires Articles 14 and 300-A, and in any view ultra vires Articles 245 and 246 of the Con