JUDGMENT P.V. Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from an order of the late Chaturvedi J. rejecting an application filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 30th October 1956 of the erstwhile Vindhya Pradesh Government (constituting a committee of five persons for the management of the) 'Bara Akhara' Trust, Maihar. 2. In their application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners stated that one Shri Sakkendraju Maharaj, who was an exponent and follower of Madhava Sampradaya of Hindu religion, came from Jaipur to Maihar some two hundred years back and founded a Math at Maihar known as "Shri Ram Sakhendra Ju Ka Akhara"; that he installed an image of 'Ram-Janki' in the Akhara which used to be worshipped by the followers of the Sampradaya; that several persons endowed properties to the Akhara and the then Ruler of Maihar also gave a village for the maintenance of the Akhara and the worship of the deity; and that after the death of Mahant Ram Rangile, the petitioner Pramodhan Bihari Saran became the Mahant of the Math. The petitioners proceeded to say that soon after Pramodhan Bihari Saran became the Mahant, the Vindhya Pradesh Government advised him to form a trust committee for the proper management of the Akhara and the properties attached to it; that acting on this suggestion the "Bara Akhara" trust was formed and was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; that on the formation of this society in 1951, a committee for the management of the Akhara and its properties was formed in accordance with the memorandum of Registration of the society; and that in September 1955 the Tahsildar of Maihar began to interfere with the management of the Akhara and ultimately on the 30th October 1956 the Government of Vindhya Pradesh constituted a committee for the effective management of the Akhara and asked the petitioner to hand over the management and the properties of the Akhara to the new committee. The petitioners contended that the Vindhya Pradesh Government had no power to appoint any such committee and to order the petitioner Pramodhan Bihari Saran, who was the President of the committee constituted in accordance with the memorandum of association of the society registered under the the Act of 1860, to hand over the management of the Akhara and its properties to the new committee. 3. The learned single Judge rejected the petition holding that the Rewa Government had power to appoint the committee that they did under the provisions of the "Rewa Rajya Dewarth Tatha Dharmarth Dan Sampatti Vidhan" (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as extended to the whole of Vindhya Pradesh which included the former State of Maihar, and that the petitioner Pramodhan Bihari Saran's status as Mahant and Manager of the temple was not clear and required an investigation of facts which could not be done in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that sections 6 and 16 of the Act, which according to the learned single Judge gave the power to the Government, to appoint the impugned committee, did not in fact give any such power and that the petitioner Pramodhan Bihari Saran having been appointed as the President of the managing committee constituted in accordance with the memorandum of registration of the Bara Akhara Trust as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, his competency to challenge the validity of the committee formed by the Government could not be in doubt. 5. In our judgment, the contention advanced by the learned counsel must be accepted and this appeal must be allowed. Section 6 of the Act only gave power to the Rewa Darbar to appoint Panchayats for the whole State or for a part of the State for the management of the religious and charitable institutions situated therein. This Section did not give to the Government the power to appoint a managing committee for the management of any particular temple or a religious or charitable institution. It was the Panchayat constituted under Section 6 of the Act which could under Section 16 constitute such a managing committee for a particular temple or religious institution with the consent of the Rewa Darbar. It was the Panchayat constituted under Section 6 of the Act which could under Section 16 constitute such a managing committee for a particular temple or religious institution with the consent of the Rewa Darbar. Here, admittedly, no Panchayat in terms of Section 6 of the Act was constituted for the Maihar region under Section 6 of the Act and the committee that was appointed by the Vindhya Pradesh Government was not a committee constituted by any such Panchayat under Section 16. Learned Government Advocate was not able to refer us to any provision under which the Vindhya Pradesh Government claimed the power to appoint the impugned committee. In our opinion, the committee appointed by the Vindhya Pradesh Government was wholly illegal and unconstitutional. 6. As to the competency of the petitioner to challege the validity of the committee in question, it is clear that he is entitled to do so in his capacity as the President of the managing committee constituted in accordance with the memorandum of the registration of the Bara Akhara Trust as a society under the Act of 1860. The petitioner Pramodhan Brhari Saran would have that capacity even if it is taken that he was not a duly appointed Mahant of the Bara Akhara Trust. 7. For these reasons, the order dated the 17th January 1958 in Misc. Petition No. 565 of 1956 is reversed and the order dated the 30 October 1956 passed by the former Vindhya Pradesh Government constituting a committee for the management of the said Akhara is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the appellants. Appeal allowed