CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition coming up for orders, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by the following order. ( 2 ) THE short question which fallsfor determination is whether the impugned order was issued in accordance with law. The facts which are required to be narrated are as follows : the petitioner was appointed as a member of the committee of dharmadharshies of srikanteswaraswamy temple, nanjangud, by an order dated 16-6-1987. His name appears at si. No. 11 in the ordor. However, the commissioner for religious and charitable institutions in Karnataka having jurisdiction called upon the petition by his notice dated 29-6-1989 to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of dharmasharsy on account of his having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonnent and payment of fine. The appeal against the order of conviction was also dismissed with slight modification in regard to the quantam of fine. In reply to the said notice, he gave an evasive reply callingg or more particulars and in the light of that reply an order came to be passed on 1-9 1989 by the commissioner for endowments in Karnataka, Bangalore, as at Annexure b. It is the correctness of that order is challenged in this petition ( 3 ) THE appointment and removalof dharmadharshies is controlled by the Mysore religious and charitable institutions regulations 1927 or the Karnataka religious and charitale institutions Act, 1971. Section 11 of the act enables the government to frame rules not inconsistent with the act. Pursuant thereto, rules have been framed known in the rules under the Karnataka religious and charitable institutions regulation Rule 8 of the ruies provides for the mode of appoint merit, powers and duties of dharrnadarsis. Rule 6 (16) of the rules provides that any charmadasi who fills to attend more the three consecutive meetings or the committee of dharmadarshis or is absent form station for more than six moths is liable to be removed from the office sub-rule 17) of Rule 6 of the rules providers that the deputy commissionerr may for, for suffcient reasons recommend to the muzrai commissioner the removal of any dharmadarsi of any major institution from the office. In the case of scheduled institutions tho recommendation should be sent up to the government for orders, ( 4 ) SRI Srikanteswara swami. In the case of scheduled institutions tho recommendation should be sent up to the government for orders, ( 4 ) SRI Srikanteswara swami. Temple at nanjangu is a scheduled institutionand it is rot in dispute therefore, in complainace with the requirement of sub-rule (17; of Rule 6 of the rules, the order of removal should be made by the government and not by the commissioner fur religious and charitable institutions. ( 5 ) IN the instant case the commissioner has passed the order and notthe government. The learned government pleader has not placed any mate rial to show that the power has been delegated to the commissioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure d is clearly without the authority of law and is hable to be quashed. ( 6 ) THE impugned order is accord ingly quashed however, liberty isreserved to the deputy commissioner to forward tho recommendation to the government now and the government may pass. Such; orders as it. think fit in the light of the explanation offered offered by the petitionerr to the schow cause notice issued. No fresh show cause notice need be issued. ( 7 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Ruleissued is made absolute. ( 8 ) ORDER accordingly. writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .