K.A. Swami, CJ.

1. Respondent is represented through counsel. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, by consent of parties, the Writ appeal is heard and disposed of.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4254 of 1985. In the writ petition, the petitioner - respondent sought for quashing G.O.Ms.No.1348 dated 112. 1984. It may be pointed out here that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was found to be unfit to hold the office of the hereditary trustee of the temple known as Agastheeswarar and Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal temple and in his place, his wife was appointed as the hereditary trustee. After sometime he made an application for re-appointment. His wife also supported the application on the ground that she was not able to discharge the functions of the here ditary trustee. The Government considered the request and rejected it. The learned single Judge also has not found that the impugned order of the State Government is liable to be interfered with. However, the learned single Judge has taken a view that as the wife is not in a position to discharge the functions of the hereditary trustee, she