JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. This is a petition by five hereditary trustees of a temple to quash a scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, referred to hereafter as the Act. The first point urged against the scheme was, that in framing it the Deputy Commissioner did not comply with the requirement in Section 58(1) of the Act, because he did not "satisfy himself that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution, a scheme should be settled", prior to the consultation which he made, as envisaged in the Section. In the annexure to the scheme, he has stated that he was satisfied, that in the interests of the proper administration of the temple, a scheme is necessary. The opening sentence in the annexure also says, that the necessity to settle a fresh scheme had been pointed out by the High Court in the order on Writ Petition 188 of 1955(M). No objection had been specifically taken by any of the petitioners, before the Deputy Commissioner or before the appellate authority to whom the matter was taken, that this requirement in Section 58(1) of the Act had not been complied with. Even otherwise, I am inclined to think, that the omission, if any, in this respect can be only an irregularity ; in any case no express reference in the scheme to the fulfilment of this condition was called for and the absence of it would not vitiate the scheme, so long as the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied in terms of the latter part of Section 58(1) of the Act, that it was necessary or desirable to frame a scheme of administration for the temple. 2. The next point raised was, that the prescription in paragraph 3 of the scheme that the trustee shall not be a tenant of the temple or occupy the position of a debtor or creditor, is in contravention of Section 91(a) of the Act. This argument is wholly without foundation, because Section 91(a) provides only that "nothing cantained in this Act shall..........affect any honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise..........".The above provision does not conflict with paragraph 3 of the scheme. This argument is wholly without foundation, because Section 91(a) provides only that "nothing cantained in this Act shall..........affect any honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise..........".The above provision does not conflict with paragraph 3 of the scheme. To me, the condition in paragraph 3 appears to be a very salutary one, designed to ensure, that the interests of the trustees, do not conflict with their duty to the temple. 3. The learned counsel then contended, that the condition prescribed in paragraph 5 of the scheme, that the appointment of the executive officer shall be subject to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, and that his salary and allowances shall be fixed in consultation with him, violates the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. I see nothing in Narayanan Namburipad v State of Madras, 1958 KLT 1095 relied on by counsel which supports this proposition; that case has laid down, that a provision for the appointment of a manager cannot constitute an abridgement of the right of the hereditary trustees. I am unable to see how the condition for securing the approval of the Deputy Commissioner amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right. In any event, it is only a reasonable restriction. The judgment in Letters Patent Appeal 49 of 1953(M) which was also referred to, has not decided this point and constitutes no authority. I can appreciate, that there may be some practical difficulty in the event of a capricious withholding of approval by the Deputy Commissioner, in which case, it may be open to the petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs, even in this court, under Article 226. I therefore think, that paragraph 5 of the scheme cannot be struck down as infringing any fundamental right of the petitioners. 4. The last point raised, that the scheme now framed does not give effect to the direction in the order of this court in Writ Petition 188 of 1955(M), cannot stand. The direction was only that the Deputy Commissioner may draw "considerable assistance..............from the scheme adopted by the Madras High Court................in A. S. No. 458 and 914 of 1950". The Deputy Commissioner does say in the annexure, that he has adopted that scheme as far as possible. After all, I think, the direction in the order of this court was meant only for his guidance. The Deputy Commissioner does say in the annexure, that he has adopted that scheme as far as possible. After all, I think, the direction in the order of this court was meant only for his guidance. No other point having been raised, this petition is dismissed with costs to the respondents, one set only. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-.