Discretion to appoint a fit person under section 53(4).

This appeal under the Letters Patent is from an order of Srinivasan, J., dismissing a petition to quash an order of the 1st respondent, dated 30th March, 1963, by which he framed certain additional charges against the appellant and pending enquiry into the charges, appointed the 2nd respondent as a fit person. In making the appointment, the first respondent considered that by reason of the suspension a temporary vacancy had occurred and it became necessary to act under section 54(2) and (3). He was mindful of the claims of the eldest son of the appellant but because he was at the time only 19 years of age and was a student studying in the IX Standard, he was considered to be not capable of managing the affairs of the temple. That is how he appointed the 2nd respondent, a stranger to the family of the appellant, as a fit person to carry on the functions of the hereditary trustee. There is no dispute that the office of trusteeship is hereditary and the administration of the temple ofavaneethakrishnaswami is governed by a Scheme settled by this Court in A.S. No. 165 of 1956. The appellant contended before the learned Judge that the first respondent, acting as he did under section 54(2) and (3) in appointing a fit person, misdirected himself and the order was therefore without jurisdiction. This contention did not find favour with the learned Judge. He was of the view that though the first respondent was not right in citing section 54(2) of Madras Act XXII of 1959, he had power to make the appointment under section 53(4). In the course of his order, the learned Judge also considered that an interim suspension pending an enquiry could not be said to give rise to a temporary vacancy within the meaning of section 54(2) and for this reason also, he considered that the proper section which would be applicable to appointment of a fit person in case of suspension pending an enquiry, was section 53(4).

Before us, Mr. Vedantachari for the appellant argues that there being no dispute that the office of trusteeship in the temple is hereditary, and though the power to appoint a fit person in a contingency like this is provided for in section 53(4), the manner of making the appointment of a fit person is laid down in section 54(3) and it follows, therefore, that in appointing a fit person, the Deputy Commissioner concerned should have due regard to the claims of members of the family, if any, entitled to the succession. Learned Counsel urges that due regard in this case had not been paid by the first respondent to the claims of the eldest son of the appellant and that the grounds for eliminating him from appointment as a fit person were not tenable.

Section 53 of the Act provides for power to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee of a religious institution. Sub-section (2), while conferring the power, enumerates the grounds on which punishment of one or the other category can be imposed. Sub-section (3) prescribes the procedure to be followed in enquiries under subsection (2). Sub-section (4) reads:

“Pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the appropriate authority may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the trustee.”

Section 54 relates to filling up of vacancies in the office of hereditary trustee. The first part of the section is to the effect that when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. A similar provision is made by sub-section (2) in respect of a temporary vacancy and it says that when such a vacancy occurs under subsection (2) of section 53, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed. Under these two sub-sections it may be noticed, the next in the line of succession is entitled to succeed as a matter of right. Sub-section (3.) covers filling up of permanent or temporary vacancies arising in certain