Judgment :- 1. The petitioners father was hereditary trustee of Sri Vengeeswarar Devastanam., Proceedings were initiated against him and he was removed from office. The petitioner being his eldest son, claimed that he was entitled to be the next hereditary trustee as per the provisions of S. 54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 2. A fit person had been appointed earlier when the proceedings were pending as against the petitioners father. The petitioner had applied to the first respondent that he being the person entitled to succeed his father as hereditary trustee, should be appointed and no fit person should be appointed in that place. The first respondent passed an order on 15-3-1989 to the effect that the appointment of fit person was only a temporary measure which would not impinge on the right of the petitioner to succeed when the permanent vacancy arises under S. 54(1) of tne Act. The petitioner was, therefore, requested to wait till the enquiry against his father was over. After the enquiry was over and the petitioners father was removed by order of the first respondent on 24-7-1989, the petitioner sought for a direction from the first respondent to the fit person to hand over charge to the petitioner herein as the next hereditary trustee. The petitioner received an order from the first respondent on 22 8-1989 that he should apply to the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate orders under S. 54(1) of the Act as the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority. The petitioner sent a reply through his advocate on 1-9-1989 inviting the attention of the first respondent to the position that there is no necessity for making any application for the succeeding hereditary trustee and that succession is automatic as recognised by the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioner, there is no reply so far to the said communication. 3. Under S. 54 or the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. There is no necessity, whatever, for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. There is no necessity, whatever, for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. In this case, the petitioner had to approach the first respondent, because a fit person, was already in charge of the administration of the temple. As the first respondent had appointed the fit person, the petitioner sought a direction to the fit person from the first respondent to hand over charge to the petitioner as he has become the hereditary trustee. The first respondent ought to have issued such a direction. On the other hand, the first respondent directed the petitioner to go to the Deputy Commissioner which is unwarranted by the provisions of the Act. 3. In the circumstances, a writ of mandamus will issue directing the first respondent to give a direction to the fit person of the temple to hand over charge to the petitioner who is the next hereditary trustee. As there is no dispute at present that the petitioner is the eldest son of the prior trustee, this writ of mandamus is issued to the first respondent as indicated above. 4. The first respondent shall issue the direction to the fit person on or before 25-1-1990. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There will no order as to costs.