Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and same, namely H.H. Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeer. The Administration of the temples of Sri Adikesavaperumal and Sri Bashyakaraswami in Sriperumbudur together with all the shrines attached thereto is governed by a scheme settled by the Sub Court of Chingleput in C.S. No. 30 of 1921. In I.A. No. 448 of 1922 by an order dated 3rd January, 1923 certain scheme rules were framed pursuant to the scheme. Cl. 6 of the scheme stated that there shall be two Dharmakarthas appointed to manage the affairs of the Devasthanam, and they be appointed by the Court. Cl. 7 provides that ordinarily one Dharmakartha shall be in charge of the religious affairs of the Devasthanam exclusively devoting himself to and vested with the sole right to superintend, regulate and control all the religious and ceremonial matters and having control of all the servants and employees directly rendering or aiding in the religious services and all matters of internal discipline in the Devasthanam, and in all its shrines consistently with the provision in the schedule of establishment and rules of Court in that matter as provided in rule 54. Cl. 8 of the scheme dealt with the other Dharmakartha who shall be a secular Dharmakartha in primary charge of Devasthanam office records, accounts and establishment and outdoor establishment and shall superintend, regulate and control all members of the said establishment consistently with the provisions in the schedule of establishment and rules of court in that matter as provided in rule 54. Cl. 10 of the scheme provided that the Court shall ordinarily appoint the Head for the time being of the Ethiraja Jeer Mutt own his application as the religious Dharmakartha provided he is over 18 years of age and is not subject to any of the disqualifications declared for Dharmakartha by rule 21 and such religious Dharmakartha shall hold office so long as he continues to be head of the said Mutt. 2. It is unnecessary to refer to the other clauses in the scheme as far as the present writ petitions are concerned. The Court has given reasons as to why it preferred the nomenclature “Dharmakartha” to the nomenclature “trustee” and why it provided for the division of labour as between the religious Dharmakartha and the secular Dharmakartha. 2. It is unnecessary to refer to the other clauses in the scheme as far as the present writ petitions are concerned. The Court has given reasons as to why it preferred the nomenclature “Dharmakartha” to the nomenclature “trustee” and why it provided for the division of labour as between the religious Dharmakartha and the secular Dharmakartha. On 10th October, 1939, a notification was issued under S. 65-A of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927. In view of this notification, the scheme ceased to apply to the temples i n question. Subsequently, it is admitted that the notification issued on 10th October, 1939 ceased to operate by efflux of time on and from 16th July, 1966. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed an application where after the ceasing of the operation of a Notification dated 10th October, 1939, issued under S. 65-A of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department requesting that he may be recognised under Cl. 3 of the Scheme rules and appointed as religious Dharmakartha of the temples in question and necessary instructions be issued to the trustee and the Executive Officer of the temples so as to enable him to discharge the duties under the terms of the scheme. On 7th July 1967 the Commissioner dismissed the application. According to the Commissioner, the petitioner was not entitled to be the religious Dharmakartha of the temples, The primary basis for this conclusion of the Commissioner was that after the lapse of the notification issued under Section 65-A of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1967, the scheme originally framed by the Sub Court, Chingleput did not revive. It is as against this order of the Commissioner that the petitioner preferred writ Petition No. 3711 of 1967 on the file of this Court. That writ Petition was allowed by Kailasam, J. on 24th January 1969. The learned Judge held that on the lapse of the notification by efflux of time, the scheme framed by the Sub Court revived. Against this judgment of Kailasam, J. the Commissioner preferred a writ appeal, the Judgment in which has been reported in Commissioner, H.R. and C. E. v. H.H. Perarulala Ramanuja Jeer 1973-II M.L.J. 17; 86 L.W. 444. The learned Judge held that on the lapse of the notification by efflux of time, the scheme framed by the Sub Court revived. Against this judgment of Kailasam, J. the Commissioner preferred a writ appeal, the Judgment in which has been reported in Commissioner, H.R. and C. E. v. H.H. Perarulala Ramanuja Jeer 1973-II M.L.J. 17; 86 L.W. 444. The learned Judges agreed with the conclusion of Kailasam, J. that on the expiry of the notification on 16th July 1966, the scheme framed by the Sub Court, Chingleput revived. However, with referencne to an argument advanced before the Court that the provisions of the scheme were not consistent with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, the Bench pointed out as follows:— “The Commissioner was of the view that the scheme was also inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. But he has not chosen to examine carefully which of the provisions of the scheme are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act in the sense that the two provisions examined side by side cannot stand together or operate at the same time, it is true, as pointed out by the learned Government pleader, that Madras Act 22 of 1959 only contemplates two kinds of trustees hereditary and non-hereditary trustee. But the point still remains whether the functions of a trustee, whether hereditary or non-hereditary, can be bifurcated as religious and secular and trustees be appointed on that basis under the provisions of the Act. It is in the light of this, the Commissioner will have to see whether there is any provision in the scheme which is inconsistent with any provision of the Act, We have no doubt that the Commissioner will apply his mind to this aspect and dispose of the application made by the first respondent in accordance with this judgment.” 3. It is pursuant to this judgment, the Commissioner passed the impugned order on 1st December 1973. By the impugned order, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the provisions contained in the scheme for appointment of religious and secular Dharmakartha are inconsistent with the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 for appointment of trustees, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be recognised and appointed as the religious Dharmakartha within the scope of the scheme. It is to quash this order of the Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 704 of 1974 has been filed. 4. On the basis of this order dated 1st December 1973, the Commissioner appointed non-hereditary trustees by his order dated 28th March 1974 To quash that order, Writ Petition No. 955 of 1974 has been preferred. 5. Let me first take Writ Petition No. 704 of 1974. The question for consideration is whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the appointment of a trustee exclusively in charge of the religious affairs of the temples in question would be inconsistent with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. The Commissioner in the impugned order has referred to the decision of ‘trustee’ as contained in the Act as well as the power conferred on the different authorities or appointment of trustees. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that under the provisions of the Act the trustees have to function jointly and the management of the institution has to be joint and consequently, there is no scope for the appointment of a person like the petitioner as the religious trustee. In my opinion this conclusion of the Commissioner is obviously wrong. Before proceeding to gave my reason, I shall indicate that pursuant to the order of the Bench of this Court what the Commissioner had to do is to examine whether any particular provision contained in the scheme is consistent with any of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. As a matter of fact, what exactly is meant by inconsistency has been in a way explained by this Court itself when it pointed out that the inconsistency must be such that the two provisions cannot stand together simultaneously. The Commissioner has not found anywhere that the two provisions cannot stand together. The Commissioner appears to have been misled by the fact that the Act contemplates only two kinds of trustees, namely hereditary and non-hereditary trustees. The Commissioner has not found anywhere that the two provisions cannot stand together. The Commissioner appears to have been misled by the fact that the Act contemplates only two kinds of trustees, namely hereditary and non-hereditary trustees. In my opinion, the fact that the Act contemplates the appointment of only these two kinds of trustees cannot in any way be said to be inconsistent with the functional division as between the different trustees, one being in charge of the secular affairs of the institution and the other being in charge of the religious affairs of the temples If the basis of the distinction between hereditary and non-hereditary trustees is the source and the method of appointment, the distinction between a religious and a secular trustee is functional in that as between the trustees, the internal management of the institution is so divided that one is in exclusive charge of the religious affairs, while the other is in exclusive charge of the secular affairs of the institution. Consequently, in my opinion there is absolutely no inconsistency between the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 and the provisions contained in the scheme providing for appointment of one trustee to be exclusively in charge of the secular affairs and the appointment of another trustee to be exclusively in charge of the religious affairs of the temple, and therefore being called the secular trustee and the religious trustee. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that the conclusion of the Commissioner that there is inconsistency in this behalf is erroneous. In view of the narrow compass within which the petitioner himself applied to the Commissioner, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the other aspects considered by the Commissioner in his impugned order. All that the necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is to hold that the Commissioner was in error in holding that the provisions contained in the scheme for recognising the petitioner herein as a religious trustee are inconsistent with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. All that the necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is to hold that the Commissioner was in error in holding that the provisions contained in the scheme for recognising the petitioner herein as a religious trustee are inconsistent with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. Therefore, Writ Petition No. 704 of 1974 succeeds and it is allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner will have to restore the application filed by the petitioner for recognising him as the religious trustee and for appointing him as such religious trustee under rule 3 of the scheme rules, and pass orders in the light of the judgment of this court. 6. Writ Petition No. 955 of 1974, as I pointed out already has been filed to quash the order of the Commissioner dated 28th March 1974 appointing non-hereditary trustees. Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a hereditary trustee and consequently if the Commissioner wanted to appoint non-hereditary trustee, he will have to follow the procedure prescribed in S. 47(2) of the Act and such a procedure has not been followed. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that it is S. 47(1) of the Act that applies and under that section the commissioner had the power to appoint the non-hereditary trustees in question. I am not expressing any opinion whether it is S. 47(1) or S. 47(2) that applies to the present case, because even on the basis that it is S. 47(1) that is applicable to the present case, the order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained. S. 47(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 confers power on the Commissioner to appoint trustees in respect of what are called listed institutions. The section says that where a religious institution included in the list published under S. 46 or in respect of which no Area Committee exercises powers and discharges duties, has no hereditary trustee, the Commissioner shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than three and not more than rive persons appointed by him. In the present case, the sole basis for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the Commissioner is his conclusion that the petitioner herein was not entitled to be appointed and recognised as the religious trustee within the terms settled by the Court. In the present case, the sole basis for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the Commissioner is his conclusion that the petitioner herein was not entitled to be appointed and recognised as the religious trustee within the terms settled by the Court. For the reasons I have given in my judgment in Writ Petition No. 714 of 1974, this conclusion of the Commissioner is untenable and cannot be sustained. If the Commissioner appoints and recognises the petitioner herein as the religious trustee as provided for in the scheme settled by the Sub Court, what action he would take, whether he would take, whether he would still appoint non-hereditary trustees or not one cannot at this stage visualise or speculate. As I pointed out already, the order of the Commissioner dated 28th March 1974 makes it indisputably clear that he purported to appoint non-hereditary trustees solely because he held that the provisions of the scheme dealing with the appointment of a religious trustee were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, and if that basis for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees is not available to the Commissioner, whether the Commissioner would have still appointed non-hereditary trustees is a matter which could not be speculated at this stage. Therefore on the sole ground that the very basis for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees by the older dated 28th March 1974, is not available to the Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 955 of 1974 is also allowed and the older dated 28th March 1974 of the Commission r appointing non-hereditary trustees is quashed. This quashing of the order of the Commissioner will not prevent the Commissioner from proceeding again either under S. 47(1) or S. 47(2) of the Act on the basis that the petitioner herein was entitled to be recognised and appointed as the religious trustee of the temples in question under the terms of the scheme. I may make it clear that apart from what I have decided with reference to the alleged inconstancy between the provisions of the scheme for the appointment of the petitioner as a religious trustee and the provisions of the Act, I have not decided any other controversy between the parties in these writ petitions and all other controversies are left open. There will be no order as to costs in any of these writ petitions.