There is no reason to strike down provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

In all these writ petitions, the validity of Ordinance 3 of 1996, known as Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1996 is challenged. After we reserved these cases for judgment, the Ordinance 3 of 1996 came to be replaced by Act 23 of 1996. Therefore, these cases were directed to be posted for ‘being spoken to’, in order to ascertain from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, as to whether they have got any additional arguments to be advanced. Accordingly, these cases were posted before the Court on 12. 1996. On that date, both sides submitted that there were no additional arguments to be advanced on the validity of Act 23 of 1996, as the arguments advanced on the validity of Ordinance 3 of 1996 would equally apply to the validity of Act 23 of 1996 also. Both the sides submitted that the writ petitions be treated as challenging the Act also. We recorded the submissions made by both sides on 12. 1996 and passed the following order:

“These matters were heard and reserved for judgment, when the Ordinance 3 of 1996 was in force. Now the Ordinance 3 of 1996 has been replaced by Act 23 of 1996, which is operative from the date when the ordinance was issued. Under these circumstances, these appeals and the writ petitions came to be posted for ‘being spoken to’ so that the very validity of the Act can be considered. Learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents submit that as the arguments on the validity of Ordinance and the Act are the same, inasmuch as the Act is nothing but replacing of the Ordinance, the appeals and the writ petitions may be treated as challenging the Act also. We accordingly proceed to consider the validity of the Act also.”

Therefore, we proceed to determine the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 23 of 1996’).

1.. Writ Appeal Nos.668 and 671 of 1996 and Writ Petition Nos. 10111, 10113, 10133, 10332, 10180, 10618, 10846, 10901, 10920, 11141 10832, and 11250 of 1996 are covered by a scheme framed by the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

W.P.Nos.10216, 10623, 10664, 10150, 10939 and 10546 of 1996 are cases in which the trustees were appointed by the Temple Administration committee. W.P. No. 10735 of 1996, which is a community temple, is covered by an order under Sec.64 (1) of the Act. In this matter, Second Appeal No.896 of 1994 is pending in this Court. W.P.Nos.11310 and 11311 of 1996 are covered by Civil Court decrees.

2. By one stroke, the Government of Tamil Nadu has removed all the hereditary and non-hereditary trustees of the various temples in the State of Tamil Nadu on the only ground that there being discontent in the minds of the general public about the functioning of the trustees and has directed appointment of Fit Persons in the place of the existing incumbents irrespective of the fact whether the terms of the incumbent had expired or was subsisting. The validity of this legislative action of the State is challenged in these matters. Therefore, all the writ appeals and the writ petitions have been heard together since common question in all of them is the validity of Act 23 of 1996, which has replaced the Ordinance 3 of 1996.

3. The first batch of cases are covered by schemes framed by the authorities under the Act on the applications made under Sec.64 (1) of the Act. The petitioners in the second batch of cases are non-hereditary trustee’s appointed by the Temple Administration District Committees under the provisions of the Act. Their case is, that they were appointed by the Temple Administration District Committees for a period of three years and that they were sought to be removed by virtue of the provisions of the Ordinance even before the expiry of their term. W.P. No. 10735 of 1996 is