The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Commissioner to modify the Scheme under Section 64(5) of the Act and the importance of providing adequate representation to all communities in the village in the administration of the temple.

1. Arulmigu Pattalamman and Muthaiyasamy temples are situated at Melmangalam Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. It is a public temple and is in existence for more than 100 years. In 1976, persons representing 5 communities viz., Ambalam, Servai, Pandaram, Konar and Pillai applied to frame a Scheme under Section 64 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Shortly "the Act") before the then Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madurai. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the matter and framed a Scheme in O.A.No.8/1976 by an order dated 13.05.1982 for administration of the temple. As per the Scheme, the administration have been vested with 5 Trustees and each one of the Trustees would be selected from the members of the aforesaid 5 communities. The Trustees have to elect one among them as a Chairman. The tenure of Trustees was fixed at 3 years.

2. Later, some persons representing Rajakula Ahamudaiyar Community of the village sought for a modification of the Scheme by filing O.A.No.1/1997 before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Madurai, the second respondent herein. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Madurai after hearing both sides, dismissed the O.A.No.1/1997 on 28.11.2007 on the ground that while framing the Scheme by an order dated 13.05.1982 in O.A.No.8/1976, due procedure was followed and the members of all communities were given opportunities to participate in the adjudication proceeding and to make their objections if any.

3. Against the order dated 28.11.2007 in O.A.No.1/1997 of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Madurai, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein, under Section 69(1) of the Act, in A.P.No.4 of 2008 D.2. The appeal was allowed by the first respondent on 19.12.2008 by setting aside the very Scheme framed in O.A.No.8/1976.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2008 of the first respondent, the Trustees, the petitioners herein, who administer the temple, filed writ petition in W.P.No.2002 of 2009. This Court allowed the writ petition on 08.12.2009 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the issue afresh.

5. On remand, the Commissioner, the first respondent herein, passed an order dated 03.03.2010 remanding the matter in O.A.No.1/1997 to the original authority namely, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Madurai to consider the whole issue for modification of the Scheme framed in O.A.No.8/1976. The order dated 03.03.2010 of the first respondent is put to challenge in this writ petition, by the the petitioners, who belong to the 5 communities referred to above and who are now administering the temple pursuant to the Scheme framed in the year 1982. The respondents 4 – 8 belong to Rajakula Ahamudaiyar Community.

6. Notice of motion was ordered on 27.04.2010 and an order of interim stay was also granted. The respondents 4 to 8 have filed counter affidavit.

7. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for the respondent 1 to 3 and Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondents 4 to 8.

8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that the Commissioner did not give any reason for remanding the matter to the Joint Commissioner for his decision. The Commissioner could not simply remand the matter just because the respondents 4 to 8 herein sought for a remand.

9. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the respondents 4 to 8 submits that the order of the Commissioner is a well reasoned order and that in fact, the petitioners herein sought for remand. It is submitted that the petitioners herein contended before the Commissioner that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to modify the scheme. The learne