The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Board to act judicially and fairly, and the illusory nature of the appeal process under Chapter VI-A.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The petitioner is the head of an ancient and well-known math, the Tiruvannamalai Math at Kunnakudi. As head of the math he is the trustee of a group of five temples, known as the Anjukovil Devasthanams, Kunnakudi. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") has notified these temples under Chap. VI-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, with the object of taking the management of them out of the hands of the petitioner and placing it in the hands of an officer of its own choosing. The petitioner complains that in taking action under Chap.VI-A the Board has not acted bona fide, but in abuse of its powers, and asks the Court in certiorari proceedings to quash the orders of the Board which have resulted in the notification of the temples. A rule nisi has been issued and the Court has now to consider whether the rule should be made absolute.

2. From time immemorial the, head of the Tiruvannamalai math has been the trustee of the five temples and that the head of this math should be the trustee has been recognized by this Court. A scheme for the administration and management of the temples was framed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 216, 218 and 219 of 1925. The date of the judgment settling the scheme was 23rd October, 1925. The scheme provided that the then head of the Tiruvannamalai math should be the trustee of the temples and that on a vacancy occurring the head of the math for the time being should be appointed the trustee, unless the District Court of Ramnad "for any valid reason" should deem him to be unfit. By an order dated the 25th May, 1931, the Board recognized the temples as excepted temples within the meaning of the Act and the head of the math as the hereditary trustee. The petitioner became the head of the math on the 10th June, 1928, but the District Court refused to recognize him as the trustee of the temples and by an order dated 16th March, 1932, appointed a receiver to take charge of them. By an order of a Bench of this Court, dated 5th April, 1934, which was passed by consent of all parties, the District Judges order refusing to recognize the petitioner was set aside and the petitioner was appointed the trustee. The order of appointment imposed inter alia the following conditions : -(1) within four months after the close of each fasli and subject to the approval of the Court the trustee should appoint a Government certified auditor to audit the accounts of the temples; (2) he should keep the accounts in such form as might be proposed by the auditor; (3) he should submit the budget within the time fixed by the scheme, and (4) he should pay on or before the 15th of the succeeding month the salaries due to the staff of the Board of supervision constituted by the scheme. It is not suggested that the petitioner has not complied with all the conditions imposed by the Courts order. The petitioner took up his duties as trustee on the 9th April, 1934.

3. On the 3rd May, 1938, the Board issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the temple should not be notified under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The Board made the following allegations : -(1) certain clauses of the scheme framed by this Court were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; (2) the temples required urgent repairs; (3) the salaries of temple servants had not been paid regularly; (4) the rent collections showed heavy arrears, and (5) the register of properties which Section 38 of the Act required to be kept had not been submitted to the Board. The petitioner appeared and showed cause, but a committee of the Board, consisting of the President and two members, refused to accept the petitioners explanations, except that given with regard to the fifth allegation and by an order dated 12th January, 1939, notified the temples. The petitioner appealed to the Board under Section 65-A of the Act, but his appeal was