Petitioner cannot stake his claim due to non-application of provisions of section 54.

1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for, the connected records of the 1 st respondent relating to his proceedings in R.O.C.N0.9573/97/A1 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the appointment of 2nd respondent as fit person and direct the 1st respondent to nominate the petitioner as a fit person of Arulmigu Umayakaliamman Temple at Mangalapatti Village, Kankayam Taluk.

2. The facts are not in controversy. Heard Mr.T.K.Rammohan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.T.Kokilavani, learned Government Advocate for the 1st Respondent and Mr.W.C. Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioners father was declared as hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Umayakaliamman Temple at Mangalapatti under Sec.63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in O.A.No.63 of 1971 by order dated 4.12.1971 by the 1st respondent. Subsequently, certain charges have been framed against the petitioners father M.Chinnasarny Gounder by the Joint Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Coimbatore on 26.6.1997 and the said Chinnasamy was placed under suspension. The 2nd respondent Executive Officer was appointed as the fit person pending enquiry into the charges. The petitioner herein, being the son of the said Chinnasamy, the hereditary office holder, claims that even in the temporary, vacancy caused by the suspension of his father, Chinnasamy Gounder, he should have been appointed as being the person, next in the line of succession to perform the functions of the Trustee during the period of suspension. The petitioner further claims that during the period of disability of his father, he is entitled to perform the functions and duties of hereditary Trustee on his own right, as the next line of successor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the pronouncement of this Court in Pandian Jamindarini v. Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowment Pandian Jamindarini v. Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowment Pandian Jamindarini v. Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowment, (1996)1 MLJ. 228and on that score seeks for quashing a portion of the impugned order dated 26.6.1997, by which the 2nd respondent was appointed as fit person and also a mandamus for the petitioner being appointed as the hereditary Trustee in the interregnum, viz, during the period of suspension of his father, the hereditary office holder.

5. The writ petition is being registered by the 2nd respondent, who has filed an affidavit and taken out the application to vacate the order of stay.

6. Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contends that the claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived and cannot be sustained. Further, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that if the son of the hereditary Trustee-father is allowed to hold the office, that would be detrimental to the interest of the institution, besides it is not the scope and purport of the statutory provisions in the Act.

7. Identical claim had been considered by S.Ramalingam, J. in K.Manikanda Mudaliar v. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Salem, W.P.No.12810 of 1990. In the said case, the learned Judge has considered the scope of Secs.53 and 54 of the Act and has held thus:

“4. On a consideration of these rival submissions, it is seen that while Sec.53 (2) deals with the power of the appropriate authority to impose punishment on a trustee any order of suspension as a substantive punishment is imposed, it will disable the hereditary trustee to discharge his duties by reason of that disability by way of suspension and hence there is a duty cast upon the prescribed authority to consider the claims of the next line of succession to succeed to the office of that disabled hereditary trustee to perform the functions of the trustee until his disability ceases.

5. In a case where pending enquiry into certain char