The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the proper exercise of power under Section 45(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair play in the appointment of an Executive Officer to a religious institution.

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent under Section 45 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appointing an Executive Officer in respect of the third respondent temple. According to the petitioner, his father, grand father, and great grand fathers were functioning as hereditary trustees of the temple for more than 100 years and there is one another hereditary trustee of the temple by name Thiru. Perumal Muthuraja. After the demise of the said Perumal Muthuraja his son Mr. Vaithiyalingam is functioning as the hereditary trustee. The petitioner and the said Perumal Muthuraja filed a petition under Section 69/1 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, in O.A.No.262/1976, the said petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.11.1977. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred to the first respondent in A.P.No.51 of 1978 which was allowed by the first respondent by an order dated 29.06.1981. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner and Perumal Muthuraja were declared as hereditary trustees of the temple. Whileso, the first respondent by the impugned order, appointed the third respondent as Executive Officer of the temple. The said order is questioned primarily on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice since no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that the temples namely, Arulmigu Mariamman, Vinayagar and Thottichiamman etc., situated at Chokanathapuram village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District are within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Act and are under administrative and supervisory control of the respondent Department. It is further stated that the temple has not been included in the list published under Section 46 of the Act and the office of trusteeship of the temple was declared to be hereditary in terms of Section 63(b) of the Act by an order passed in A.P.No.51 of 1978 and accordingly, the petitioner and P. Vaithialingam are functioning as hereditary trustees of the temple. It is further stated that there is no consensus between the hereditary trustees in managing the affairs of the temple which led to the filing of the writ petitions and appeal before this Court relating to performance of festival in the temple and as cold war and quarrel prevailed between the two trustees, which affected the administration of the temple. By mutual consent of both the hereditary trustees and based on which the order under Section 45 (1) of the Act came to be passed by the first respondent. Since, it was mentioned as hereditary trustee in the order, an erratum was issued to correct the mistake and substitute the word hereditary trustee with the words non hereditary trustee. In view of the consent granted by both the non hereditary trustees, for appointment of an Executive Officer, the impugned order was passed and as such does not suffer from any illegality. Based on the above pleadings, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the affidavit would submit that it is true that the second respondent had obtained the signatures of both the petitioner and other trustee P. Vaithialingam on 20.06.2008 stating that they shall consent for appointment of Executive Officer in terms of Section 45(1) of the Act. But even if such consent is granted, the first respondent while exercising the power under Section 45 ought to issue notice to the petitioner and other non