CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners claim to be devotees of malai Mahadeshwaraswamy Temple. It is situate in Kollegal Taluk of Mysore District and that Taluk was part of the erstwhile State of Madras prior to 1-11-1956. That area was governed by the provisions of the Madras hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said Act continues to be operative even after the transfer of Kollegal taluk to Karnataka State pursuant to States reorganisation Act, 1955. ( 2 ) THE trustees appointed under the provisions of the Act hold office for a period of five years. The term of office of trustees appointed on 21-5-1981 came to an end on 28-5-1986. In that circumstance, by an order dated 4-6-1986 bearing No. ADM 8 msc. LND. 86-87 the 1st respondent- commissioner for Religious and Charitable endowments, Governments of Karnataka, named nine trustees. They are, respondents 4 to 12. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the said appointments and therefore they have challenged the order which is at Annexure-A to the petition inter alia contending that the order is arbitrary, in utter disregard of the recommendations made by the Deputy commissioner and some of the persons are not qualified to be appointed as trustees. ( 4 ) IT is stated that respondent-4 Shree shivaratreshwara Swamigalu of Suttur Mutt, is past 70 years and was therefore not qualified to be appointed as trustee. That need not be examined by this Court because the said trustee so nominated is no longer alive having died during the pendency of the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT is next contended that the 5th respondent-Shree Pattada Mahadesha swamigalu, Mutt, is also disqualified as he claims adverse interests and claims to that of the presiding deity of Shri Malai mahadeshwaraswami Temple. The 5th respondent and his predecessors were claiming rights to keep Golakas in the precincts of Malai Mahadeshwaraswamy temple and utilise the contribution put in those Golakas for the benefit of the Mutt. It is also stated that the dispute has since been resolved by an order made in the year 1976 by the 1st respondent-Commissioner for religious and Charitable Endowments in karnataka. If that is done, then there is no dispute which disqualifies the 5th respondent to act as trustee. That they are intimately connected with the Temple is not disputed. It is also stated that the dispute has since been resolved by an order made in the year 1976 by the 1st respondent-Commissioner for religious and Charitable Endowments in karnataka. If that is done, then there is no dispute which disqualifies the 5th respondent to act as trustee. That they are intimately connected with the Temple is not disputed. Therefore, the appointment of the 5th respondent cannot be said to be either arbitrary or adverse to the interests of the temple. This Court has not lost sight of the fact that he is only one among the nine trustees. ( 6 ) THE objection to the appointment of the 6th respondent is that he is a resident of salem. Salem is the adjoining District of mysore bordering Kollegal Taluk. There are a number of devotees from Tamil Nadu who visit the Temple. Therefore, appointing a trustee who belongs to Tamil Nadu State and resides close to the Temple cannot be said to be an act of illegality or an act which suffers from arbitrariness. On the other hand, it protects the interests of the devotees who are not residents of Karnataka in the area in which the Temple is situate. ( 7 ) THE 7th respondent's appointment has been assailed on the ground that he was not recommended by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner is a subordinate officer to the 1st respondent-Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments. Nothing in law renders the 1st respondent liable to accept the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner in-to or partially never. The very mode of appointment is by inviting applications from persons who are desirous of acting as trustees. From the files produced by the learned Government Pleader that more than 80 applications have been received from various persons offering their services as trustees of the temple in question have been processed. It is from those applications that the Deputy Commissioner selected nine names and recommended their appointment. From the same file it is seen that three of the persons recommended by the Deputy commissioner have been appointed as trustees and they are respondents 4, 7 and 9. Therefore, even the argument that the 1st respondent-Commissioner for Religious and charitable Endowments has not applied his mind must fall to the ground and this Court must necessarily reject that contention. Therefore, even the argument that the 1st respondent-Commissioner for Religious and charitable Endowments has not applied his mind must fall to the ground and this Court must necessarily reject that contention. ( 8 ) IT has been next urged that on account of the amendment made to the Scheme of management, the hereditary rights of the families of respondents 10 and 11 had ceased and therefore respondents 10 and 11 ought not to have been appointed as trustees. Though the scheme providing for a place on the Board of trustees to the members of the two families was indeed deleted way back in 1955-56, it does not take away the right of the members of that family to be nominated as trustees or one among the nine trustees by virtue of they being devotees and residents in the vicinity of the Temple. What has been taken away is their right to be represented but not their right to be nominated without reference to their hereditary rights. Therefore, nomination of those respondents does not in any way vitiate the scheme. ( 9 ) THERE are other allegations made that the 1st respondent has been influenced by the Minister incharge of Muzrai institutions. But no mala fides have been attributed to the minister. Nor is made a party to these proceedings. Therefore, wild allegations without any material to substantiate those allegations cannot be countenanced by this court. ( 10 ) IN the light of the orders made in this writ petition, the applications' seeking impleading of certain applicants do not survive for consideration and therefore they are rejected. ( 11 ) FOR all these reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is therefore rejected, but with costs in favour of the respondents. The advocate's fee for each of the Counsel appearing for the respondents is rs. 100/ -. This shall not include costs to respondents 1 to 3. Writ Petition dismissed with Costs. --- *** --- .