Provision of Section 66 applicable to hereditary trustee.

The petitioners addressed a letter to the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, complaining that the 7 respondents who have been impleaded as parties to this writ petition are disqualified to be hereditary trustees of the Mariamman Temple, Irukkankudi, Sattur Taluk, On the only ground that they did not attend three consecutive meetings of the Trust Board. Having made such allegations against their co-hereditary trustees they went further and requested the Commissioner to treat the second petitioner and two others as the only surviving body of hereditary trustees for being recognised and dealt with even in the matter of election of the Chairman of such a Board. The first petitioner says that his right of hereditary trusteeship held by him has since been relinquished in favour of the second petitioner. This process of relinquishment is seriously deputed by the contesting respondents in this case. To continue the narrative after having so informed the Commissioner, the petitioners were expecting a date for the election of the Chairman amongst the second petitioner and two others. The Commissioner on 19th October, 1972, passed the impugned order which inter alia says this:

“The disqualifications mentioned in section 26 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act do not apply to hereditary trustees. There is therefore, no case for interference. The petitioners are informed that their petition has been lodged”.

The Commissioner, apparently has taken the view that section 26 (6) does not apply to hereditary trustees at all. He did not stop there. He concluded that there was no case for interference as well and finally stated that the complaint of the petitioners has been lodged which, of course, means that it is not going to be enquired into under any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadn Hindu Religious and Charitable Eddowments Act, hereinafter called the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner, have come up to this Court and are seeking for a writ of mandamus in. writ Petition No. 2723 of 1972 compelling the respondents to deal with their letter, dated 28th September, 1972 in a manner known to law and having found that soon after they filed the above writ petition the Commissioner has passed the order, dated 19th October, 1972, the petitioners have filed writ Petition No. 2877 of 1972, to quash the said order. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners are that the summary disposal of the petition or complaint made by the “surviving” trustees in the Board of hereditary trustees of the temple, is not proper and is against the provisions of the Act. They would state that their petition in any event, should not have been lodged and the order to the effect that the petitioners’ representations need no interference, is one passed by the Commissioner without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the contesting respondents who claim that they are still hereditary trustees and that they do constitute members of the Board of hereditary trustees, through Counsel say that the order of the Commissioner is perfectly right and within the compass of the meaning of section 26 (6) and no case has been made out to remove the said order under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. I may immediately dismiss the writ Petition No. 2723 of 1972 because that was filed at a time when the Commissioner had not disposed of the main complaint made by the petitioners, at any rare as seen from their petition, dated 28th September, 1972. The writ petition was filed on 18th October, 1972. The Commissioner passed his order which I have already excerpted in part, on 19th October, 1972, and, therefore, the writ of mandamus sought for could no longer be issued. This writ petition. (W.P. No. 2723 of 1972) is, therefore, dismissed.

3. In so far as the second writ peition for the issue of a writ of certiorari is concerned, it is necessary to refer to the relevant sections of the Act for a proper understanding of the c