JUDGMENT KADER, J. 1. The petitioner herein who has been appointed as a 'fit person' under S.47(3) of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, to discharge the functions of hereditary trustee of Vaidyanathaswamy Temple at Palghat, seeks to quash Ext. P-5, dated 27th October 1980 removing him from the office of the Managing trustee and directing him to hand over charge to the second respondent herein, who, as per the same order has been appointed as the Managing trustee. Sri Ittipangi Achan, the hereditary trustee of the above temple, informed his disability by a latter to the Asst. Commissioner who suggested to the Deputy Commissioner the name of the petitioner, a member of the hereditary trustee's family; as a fit person. On a consideration of all these facts, the petitioner was appointed as a fit person by the Deputy Commissioner as per Ext. P-1. While the petitioner was working as a fit person, one V. V. Balakrishnan was appointed as Managing Trustee. But subsequently the area Committee as per its resolution, dated 27th June 1978 cancelled the appointment of Sri Balakrishnan and appointed the petitioner herein as the Managing Trustee of the temple and he was requested to take charge from the Ex. Managing Trustee and submit his charge list duly signed. Ext. P-2 is the order by which the petitioner was appointed as the managing trustee. Thereafter a memo of charges Ext. P-3, dated 8th May 1980 was served on the petitioner who submitted a reply Ext. P-4 denying all the allegations in the memo of charges. About 7 months after, Ext. P-5, dated 27th December 1980 was served on the petitioner removing him from office of the Managing Trustee. 2. The first respondent the Area Committee represented by its Chairman, the Assistant Commissioner, is represented by the Govt. Pleader; while the second respondent is represented by Sri C. S. Devan, Advocate. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which the appointment of the petitioner as a fit person to discharge the functions of the hereditary trustee as per Ext. P-1 is admitted. Petitioner's appointment as managing trustee as per Ext. P-2 order and the removal of the petitioner from the office of the managing trustee by Ext. P-5 order also was admitted in the counter affidavit. P-1 is admitted. Petitioner's appointment as managing trustee as per Ext. P-2 order and the removal of the petitioner from the office of the managing trustee by Ext. P-5 order also was admitted in the counter affidavit. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that there were some allegations against the petitioner and that the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Managing Trustee will not in any way affect the appointment of the petitioner as a fit person under Ext. P-1. The stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit is that Ext. P-5 is valid and sustainable in law and that if the petitioner is aggrieved he has got a remedy available by way of revision under S.18 and 99 of the Act. 4. Ext P-5 is assailed on several grounds. The main ground is that this order violated principles of natural justice as it was passed without conducting an inquiry as contemplated under S.45 of the Act and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to note the charges levelled against him. Another equally important ground is that the Asst. Commissioner who removed the petitioner from service under Ext. P-5 is not competent to remove a managing trustee as there is an express bar in this regard under S.45 of the Act. 5. It is admitted before this court that Ext. P-2 order of appointment was made under S.39(2) of the Act. S.39(3) clearly states that every trustee appointed under sub-s.(1) and subject to the result of an application filed under sub-s.(4), every non hereditary trustee appointed under sub-s.(2) shall hold office for a term of five years, unless in the meanwhile the trustee is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by the Commissioner of otherwise cease to be a trustee. The counsel for the first respondent contended that R.17 framed under S.39 of the Act applies to the facts of this case. Under R.17, a Chairman elected either under sub-s.(1) or under sub-s.(2) of S.40 shall hold office for a period of 2 years from the date of his election unless he ceases to be trustee in the meanwhile. The petitioner is not a Chairman elected either under sub-s.(1) or sub-section (2) of S.40. Therefore R.17 cannot have any application to the facts of this case. The petitioner is not a Chairman elected either under sub-s.(1) or sub-section (2) of S.40. Therefore R.17 cannot have any application to the facts of this case. As stated earlier, the petitioner was appointed as Managing Trustee by the Area Committee represented by the Assistant Commissioner. The counsel for the first respondent raised an argument that the Area Committee being the authority which appointed the petitioner, has also power to remove or dismiss him from service. This argument cannot be sustained in the light of the express bar contained in S.45(1) of the Act which empowers only the Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, to suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non hereditary trustee or trustees thereof for any one of the reasons or causes enumerated in clause (a) to (e) of sub-s.1 of the section. The following are the four classes of authorities under the Act, namely, (a) Commissioner, (b) Deputy Commissioner, (c) Assistant Commissioner and (d) Area Committee. No power has been conferred on an Assistant Commissioner or the Area Committee to suspend, remove, or dismiss trustees, whether hereditary or non hereditary. The Assistant Commissioner who has passed Ext. P-5 is therefore incompetent to remove the petitioner from the office of the Managing Trustee. This apart, before a trustee can be removed or dismissed from service, an enquiry as contemplated under S.45 of the Act has to be conducted. The petitioner's contention here is that no enquiry as provided under S.45 has been conducted. Ext. P-5 does not contain any reason for removal or state the charges against the petitioner. It has not been expressly stated in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent that any enquiry as enjoined under S.45, was conducted in the case. The respondents have no case that any charge was framed against the petitioner and he was given an opportunity of meeting the charges. Denial of an enquiry or failure to conduct an enquiry under sub-s.(2) of S.45 of the Act is deprivation of a valuable right given to a delinquent trustee to meet the charges and of testing the evidence, if any, given in support of it. An enquiry under S.45(2) must be fair and strictly in accordance with the provisions in the section. An enquiry under S.45(2) must be fair and strictly in accordance with the provisions in the section. The order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the charges framed against the trustees and the explanation of the trustee has to be obtained. The charges, if not admitted, have to be substantiated by evidence and the delinquent trustee shall be given an opportunity to meet the charges and also testing the evidence, if any, produced in support of the charges. On the conclusion of the enquiry, finding on each charge with reasons therefor has to be given. Ext. P-5 order is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and flagrant violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions in S.45 of the Act. In the result, this original petition is allowed and Ext. P-5 order is hereby quashed; but I make it clear that this judgment will not be a bar against proceeding with the enquiry, if any, in accordance with S.45 of the Act.