The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an interim administrator to administer a trust when the existing trustees fail to conduct timely elections and maintain the required quorum, as mandated by the scheme decree.

All these applications relate to the functioning of the management of the Pachaiyappa's Trust running under the new scheme framed by this court. Hence all were grouped together and a common order is passed.

2. Application No.4062 of 2012 : This application is filed by the 4 remaining trustees of the Pachaiyappa's Trust elected in the elections held during the year 2009. In this application, the relief claimed by them is for permitting them to conduct the elections and to fill up the five vacancies. Out of 5 vacancies, two are to be elected by the Hindu members of the Senate of the University of Madras, one to be elected by the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board College Council and two to be elected from amongst the electoral college consisting of all the approved teachers from all the colleges of Pachaiyappa's Charities.

3. Application No.4129 of 2012 : This application is filed by the Secretary of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board having office at Chennai for appointment of an interim Administrator to administer the Pachaiyappa's Trust as per the terms of the Scheme decree framed by this court till the election for the Board of Trustees is conducted.

4. Application Nos.4226, 4497 and 4498 of 2012 : These applications were filed by the Teachers and Employees of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board Colleges, represented by its Secretary of the Joint Action Committee of AUT Units of Pachaiyappa's Trust Board at CKM College for Women, Cuddalore. A.No.4226 of 2012 was filed to implead itself as the proposed second respondent in A.No.4062 of 2012. A.No.4497 of 2012 was for restraining the Board of Trustees of Pachaiyappa's functioning duty as trustees till the election is conducted. In A.No.4498 of 2012, the association seeks for a direction to appoint a committee comprising of officers not below the rank of the I.A.S. cadre to conduct elections in respect of vacant post of trustees in accordance with the Scheme Decree as amended by this Court in Order dated 24.09.2008 and pending election, for the interim period, to appoint an interim administrator, who is an officer not below the rank of an I.A.S Officer to take charge of the administration of the Trust till the election is conducted and a board of trustees is constituted in accordance with the Scheme Decree as per the order of this court.

5. In these matters, notice was issued to the learned Advocate General. The learned Advocate General appeared personally at the first instance and also deputed Mr.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General led by Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education). It was the stand of the learned Advocate General that in the circumstances of the case, the matter can be dealt with by the court appropriately and whatever directions issued by this court will be carried out by him.

6. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.M.Vijayakumar, counsel appearing for the applicant in A.No.4062 of 2012, Mr.M.Devendran, learned Standing Counsel for Pachaiyappa's Trust Board and Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.R.Kannan in the applications filed by the Teachers and other employees.

7. Before dealing with the case, it has to be decided whether the teachers and other employees who filed an application for impleadment in A.No.4226 of 2012 can be impleaded as second respondent in A.No.4062 of 2012. In that application, the existing trustees raised a very strong objection and have filed a counter affidavit, dated 27.9.2012. Hence that matter will have to be decided first.

8. The stand of the teachers and other employees is that subsequent to the vacancies created, the existing trust board failed to conduct timely elections to elect the trustees and they have derelicted the duty imposed on them by the scheme framed. The funds of the trust were also not budgeted and spent in accordance with Clause 9 of the Scheme. The resolution of the Board were not sent to the Advocate General and