Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggreived by the notice dated 19-3-1990 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Administration department, Mayiladuthurai, under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 for framing a scheme for the institution in querstion. The petitioner has been declared to be a hereditary trustee by order dt. 4-3-1965 in O.A. 110 of 1960. In the preamble portion, the impugned notice states as follows :— “Whereas, the Deputy Commissioner. H.R. & C.E. Admn. Dept, Mayiladuthurai has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper and better administration of the above said institution a scheme of administration should be settled for the following reasons and whereas the Deputy Commissioner will bold an enquiry into the said matter at 2.30 p.m. on 17-4-1990 at his Office at door No. 11 Mayuranathan North St.. Mayiladuthurai to con sider objections, if any, to the proposed action to appoint non-hereditary trustees under S. 47 of the Act along with the heriditary trustees for the effective management of the suit temple, and to pass orders, the hereditary trustee and other persons having interest in the above institution are hereby required to appear at the time of the enquiry as aforesaid either in person or by a duly authorised advocate, with all the evidence they intend to adduce before the Deputy Commissioner and make their representations, if any, in the matter.” Learned counsel contends that the purpose of the scheme is only to appoint non hereditary trustees for the temple and that will be only under S. 47(2) of the Act. According to him such a power cannot be combined with the proceedings for framing a scheme under S. 64 and it cannot be exercised in a telescopic manner. S. 47(2) of the Act provides for appointment of other trustees in the case of an institution included in the list published under S. 46 having a hereditary trustee or trustees. That power is conferred on the Government, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, and it can be exercised only in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Section. Learned counsel contends that if non-hereditary trustees are sought to be appointed in a proceeding for framing a scheme, that will make S 47(2) a dead letter and it will be unlawful to do so. I do not agree. S. 64 of the Act provides for framing a scheme. Learned counsel contends that if non-hereditary trustees are sought to be appointed in a proceeding for framing a scheme, that will make S 47(2) a dead letter and it will be unlawful to do so. I do not agree. S. 64 of the Act provides for framing a scheme. Sub-S.(1) of the said section provides that when the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interest of the proper administration of an institution, a scheme should be settled for the institution, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing, stating that in the interests of the proper administration of an institution a scheme should be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustees and the person having interest and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall, by order, settle a scheme of administration for the institution. Under SubS.(2) of S. 64, a scheme may contain a provision for appointing a new trustee or trustees in addition to any existing trustee or trustees. Hence, the power under S 64(2) for appointment of other trustees is independent of the power under S 47(2) of the Act. Tn a case where the authority does not want to frame a scheme, but wants to appoint additional trustees in addition to the existing trustees, hereditary or otherwise, he can exercise the powers under S. 47(2) of the Act and follow the procedure prescribed therein. If on the other hand, the authority wants to frame a scheme, he can resort to S. 64. If an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 64 settling a scheme, it will be subject to the provisions of Ss. 69 and 70. Under S. 69, an appeal is available to the Commissioner and under S. 70, a suit can be instituted to challenge the order of the Commissioner. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case where I should interfere at this stage. After all, the petitioner has been given notice and has been called upon to submit his objections, if any. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case where I should interfere at this stage. After all, the petitioner has been given notice and has been called upon to submit his objections, if any. After considering his objections, if any order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner by which the petitioner is aggrieved, he can work out his rights by way of appeal and if he fails there also he can file a regular suit. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.