ORDER
Janarthanam, J.
1. There is a temple known as Arulmighu Badrakaliamman Temple in Kollampalayam Road, Erode Town. One K.Annamalai Pillai, P. Gurunatha Pillai, Kuppurathinam Ammal and Rajambal Ammal filed an application in O.A. No. 100 of 1962 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Madras-34, under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act XXII of 1959-for short ‘the Act’) praying for a declaration that they had been holding office of the trusteeship of the said temple hereditarily. On enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, while rejecting the claim of two others, namely, K. Annamalai Pillai’ and P. Gurunatha Pillai, however, upheld the claim of Kuppurathinam Ammal and Rajambal Ammal and declared them as the hereditary trustees, by his order dated 30.12.1964.
2. Respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Administration) Department, Coimbatore-18 in his proceedings Rc. No. 9390/83-Al, dated 23.7.1984 however placed Kuppurathinam Ammal under ad-interim suspension, pending enquiry into grave charges and appointed respondent 2-the Executive Officer, Sri Velayuthaswami Temple, Thindalmalai, Erode Taluk, Periyar District as the Fit Person to discharge the functions of the hereditary trustee Kuppurathinam Animal until further orders. The other hereditary trustee, namely, Rajambal Ammal, against whom no disciplinary action had been initiated, came forward with the present action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of respondent-1 in appointing respondent-2 as Fit Person to the said temple, to discharge the functions of the other hereditary trustee Kuppurathinam Ammal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in placing implicit reliance on an unreported decision of a learned Judge of this Court in M.S. Shanmugham Pillai v. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. (Admn.) Department, Tiruchirapalli and others, W.P. No. 16259 of 1990, dated 22.4.1991, would strenuously contend that the jurisdiction of the Department to appoint a Fit Person would be precluded, especially when the petitioner, who had been declared as a hereditary trustee along with Kuppurathinam Ammal, who had been suspended for some reason or other, is functioning as the hereditary trustee of the said temple and therefore, the appointment of respondent-2 as a Fit Person to the said temple is not sustainable in law.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in repelling such a submission, would however, place reliance on another unreported decision rendered by the very same learned Judge in M.T. Manikanda Mudatiar v. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn,) Department, Salem and another, W.P. No. 12810 of 1990, dated 21.8.1990, would contend that the Department is having every power to appoint a Fit Person under Section 53(4) of the Act, which says that pending disposal of the charges framed against a trustee, the appropriate authority may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the trustee and in that view of the matter, the appointment of respondent-2 as a Fit Person to the said temple cannot at all be challenged.
5. The tenability or otherwise of the rival submissions of either counsel may now fall for consideration in the arena of discussion. The projection of the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents that there is an apparent conflict between the two decisions cannot at all hold water and this aspect of the matter will become crystal clear, if the background or jurisdictional facts are carefully shifted in broad spectrum analysis with so much of care and circumspection, which impelled learned judge to express the respective views in those decisions.
6. In the case of M.S. Shanmugham Pillai v. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, Tiruchirapalli and others, W.P. No. 16259 of 1990, dated 22.4.1991, there was a hereditary trustee and he had been suspended for certain grave charges and in his place a fit person had been appointed to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the disabled trustee. The rationale for such a course is rather obvious. When the only hereditary trustees available had been suspended, it goes without saying that the appointment of a Fit Person had become necessary to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the disabled trustee or otherwise, the administration of the temple would come to a standstill. In order to get over such a, contingency, it appears that the sanguine and statutory provisions, in the shape of Sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act had been thought of by the Legislature.
7. But in the case on hand, it is not as if Kuppurathinam Animal, who had been placed under ad interim suspension on account of certain grave charges of acting against the interests of the temple pending enquiry, is the lone and sole hereditary trustee. But the sordid fact is that the petitioner herein, namely, Rajambal Ammal was also declared as a hereditary trustee, along with Kuppurathinam Ammal by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 100 of 1962 and no materials, worth the name, had been placed before court that she, in fact, had been removed or dismissed from the trusteeship; nor was there any material pointing out that against her also, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated for grave charges, placing her under suspension, impelling the Department to resort to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act for appointment of a Fit Person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the disabled hereditary trustee. When such a hereditary trustee is available, in flesh and blood, who could-very well be in effective charge of the administration of the temple, in discharging the duties as well as performing the functions of the disabled trustee Kuppurathinam Ammal, there could have been no need for the appointment of respondent-2 as a Fit Person. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the argument, as projected by learned Counsel for the petitioner is not without substance.
8. For the reasons, as above, the appointment of respondent-2, as a Fit Person cannot be stated to be sustainable, especially when the other hereditary trustee, namely, the petitioner Rajambal Ammal was not at all shown to be not functioning as hereditary trustee of the said temple.
9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule nisi issued is made absolute. No costs.