ORDER N. Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is His Holiness Parameswara Bharathigal alias Kannanore Thekkadath Swamiyar Avergal, Head of the Naduvil Mutt, Trichur. And the question raised is about the validity and propriety of certain directions issued by the 1st respondent, State of Madras, to the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Adm) Department, Coimbatore, in the matter of framing a scheme under section 58 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Palghat who was functioning as the Executive Officer of the temples was impleaded as the 3rd respondent. The petition was originally filed before the Madras High Court and was since transferred to this court under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. 2. The directions in question were contained in the following order dated 4th June 1956. ORDER In G. O. (Ms) No. 1796, Revenue dated the 3rd May 1956, the Government permitted the Special Government Pleader to give an undertaking to the High Court that the notification in respect of the temples attached to Naduvil Mutt, Malabar District, would be cancelled by the Government and steps taken to frame a scheme in accordance with the model scheme framed by the High Court in Writ Appeal 117/54. On such undertaking being given, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 2. The Government now direct that notification referred to in para 1 above be cancelled. They also direct that the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Coimbatore shall take steps to frame a scheme under section 58 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 for the administration of the temples attached to Naduvil Mutt on the lines of the draft scheme framed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 117/54. 3. The notification appended to this order will be published in the Fort St. George Gazette. (By order of the Governor) T. K. Sankaravadivelu, Secretary to Government. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent was to a certain extent noncommittal. 3. The notification appended to this order will be published in the Fort St. George Gazette. (By order of the Governor) T. K. Sankaravadivelu, Secretary to Government. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent was to a certain extent noncommittal. And, though the construction is otherwise clear, the learned Advocate General appearing before me for the State submitted that the issue of directions as above was meant only to express the views of the Government which, along with other matters may be taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, and certainly was not intended to fetter to any extent the exercise by him, of his statutory powers under section 58 and that if the petitioner wanted, the matter could well be made clear by this court. 3a. Now sub-s.(1) of section 58 says : S. 58(1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution, a scheme should be settled for the institution, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing, stating that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a scheme should be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons having interest and the Area Committee, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution; and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall by order, frame a scheme of administration for the institution Section 95 which prescribes the procedure at the inquiry says that the Indian Civil Procedure Code shall be conformed to in the matter and further that the Deputy Commissioner holding the enquiry shall be deemed to be a person acting judicially within the meaning of the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1850. The framing of schemes by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 58 would thus appear to be in the exercise of a Judicial power. See also Sadasib Prakash v State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 432 . In these cases, without doubt, outside interference in the manner complained against is hardly permissible. 4. Reference may be made also to section 99 of the Act which, while providing for the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction in matters under the Act, specifically excludes from its scope, the inquiry herein. In these cases, without doubt, outside interference in the manner complained against is hardly permissible. 4. Reference may be made also to section 99 of the Act which, while providing for the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction in matters under the Act, specifically excludes from its scope, the inquiry herein. When a corresponding question arose under the Motor Vehicles Act (1939) in the Bench case of Sri Rama Vilas Services v Road Traffic Board AIR 1948 Mad. 400, Gentle, C. J., had occasion to say: Nowhere in the Act is there say express provision by which the Central Traffic Board and a Regional Transport Board must act in accordance with the orders of the Government and there is nothing in the Act from which it can be implied that the Government can by order, direct the two Boards in the exercise of their judicial and other functions. The Boards are completely independent, unfettered by the Government save that they must observe notifications made pursuant to section 43 5. Learned Advocate General referred to Commissioner of Police v Gordhandas, AIR 1952 SC 16 , where dealing with the statement of the Commissioner of Police granting permission to the petitioner for the construction of a cinema house, that he was fully satisfied that the petitioner application should be refused but that it was only at the instance of the Cinema Advisory Committee that he granted the said permission on 14th July 1947 the court observed : That, however, would not affect the validity of his order. There is no suggestion that his will was overborne or that there was dishonesty or fraud in what he did. In the absence of that he was entitled to take into consideration the advice thus tendered to him by a public body set up for this purpose, and he was entitled in the bona fide exercise of his discretion to accept that advice and act upon it even though he would have acted differently if this important factor had not been present to his mind when he reached a decision. But no question of that kind arises here. In fact the more pertinent citation from that case would be, where the Judges dealt with the argument supporting the subsequent cancellation of the permission, at the direction of Government. But no question of that kind arises here. In fact the more pertinent citation from that case would be, where the Judges dealt with the argument supporting the subsequent cancellation of the permission, at the direction of Government. It is clear to us from a perusal of these rules that the only person vested with authority to grant or refuse a licence for the erection of a building to be used for purposes of public amusement is the Commissioner of Police. It is also clear that under R. 250 he has been vested with the absolute discretion at any time to cancel or suspend any licence which has been granted under the rules. But the power to do so is vested in him and not in the State Government and can only be exercised by him at his discretion. No other person or authority can do it 6. It follows, therefore, that the petition herein is well sustained and has to be allowed. Mandamus will accordingly issue directing the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner to ignore the directive contained in the 1st respondent order herein dated 4-6-1956. In the circumstances of this case there will be no order for costs.