Judicial competency under Section 57 of the Act prevails over natural justice considerations unless substantial bias is established.

1 The petitioner is interested in the eight temples which from the subject matter of O.A. Nos. 126 to 128, 157 to 160 and 168 of 1950 filed by respondents 1 to 3 before respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administration Department, Kozhikode. The applications prayed for action under S.57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.

2 The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1959 before the 4th respondent, invoked the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1959 S. C. 308 and prayed that all further proceedings be dropped. By Ext. A dated 16-2-1959 the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said application, and the prayer in the petition is that this Court should call for the records in O. A. 126/53 to 128/53, 157/53 to 160/53 & 168/53. pending before the 4th respondent and revise the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1959.

3 There were certain earlier proceedings under S.54 (1) of the Madras Hindu Religions Endowments Act, 1926, which were pending when the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, came into force. Those proceedings were closed with the direction that the Department may move in the matter afresh later for a decision of this question O. A. Nos. 126 to 128, 157 to 160 and 168 of 1953 followed, and the petitioner questioned their validity, without success before the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1953. According to the Government Pleader the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 810 of 1953 should preclude the petitioner from filing a petition like the one before us. The answer offered by counsel for the petitioner is that the earlier petition was under Art.226 of the Constitution and that such a petition will not preclude an application lake the present one which is under Art.227 of the Constitution. In the light of the conclusion we have reached that this petition should fail, we consider it unnecessary to decide the question.

4 The relevant portion of S.57 of the Madras; Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, reads as follows:
Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:-
[a] whether an institution is a religious institution:
S. 6l of the Act deals with appeals to the Commissioner and S.62 with suits, and appeals therefrom.

5 The validity of S.57 is not disputed. It is also conceded that the Deputy Commissioner is competent to act under the Section either on his own volition or on the motion of a member or members of the public. The contention is that the Original Applications mentioned in Para.1 above were filed by Inspectors of the Deputy Commissioners own department, that as a result there is every chance of a bias in favour of the applications, and that an inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner in such circumstances should not be permitted.

6 In 1958 KLT 969 : 1958 KLJ 720-a case in which the petitioner was the appellant - the competency of the Inspectors of the Department to move the Deputy Commissioner for action under S.57 of the Act came up for consideration. This Court said:
Our attention has not been invited to any provision in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, limiting the person or persons who could initiate the enquiry under S.57 (a) There does not therefore seem to be any objection to the inclusion of the Inspectors, within the category.
and:
In our opinion the fact that the departmental subordinate is one of the parties to a quasi judicial proceeding before his official superior does not necessarily involve a hazard.
The second of the two propositions alone is disputed before us.

7 There is no doubt that the first and most fundamental principle of natural justice is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause and that disqualifying interest is by no means confined to a pecuniary interest. Halsbury deals with bias by interest as follows:
It is an