S. MOHAN, CJ. ( 1 ) BOTH these matters can be dealt with under common judgment. ( 2 ) WE will now take up writ petition no,18933/1990 because the w. a. No. 1028/1991 is against the interlocutory order refusing to expedite the final disposal of the writ petition. When the writ appeal came up before us, we directed the writ petition itself be posted for disposal. Accordingly that writ petition is now before us. ( 3 ) THE short facts that lead to the writ petition are as under: two persons by name pundarika rao and siddaiah are the petitioners. Both of them claim as slaunch devotees of Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple and as such they claim lo have locus standi in maintaining this writ petition. The term of the committee of the erstwhile dharmadharshis of the said temple constituted under the notification of the commissioner for endowments in Karnataka bearing No. Adm 6 cr 57/1987-88, dated 16-6-1987 came to an end on 26-6-1990. Consequent to this vacancy, the committee had to be reconstituted. It appears from the records that the commissioner for endowments wrote to the secretary to the government of karnataka, revenue department, on 13-7-1990, drawing his attention to the necessity to constitute a new committee of dharmadharshis. It was also stated that proposal for reconstitution of the committee are obtained from the deputy commissioner, Mysore district; the deputy commissioner in his letter dated 22-6-1990 had recommended a panel of 12 names; the recommendation of the deputy commissioner and the various representations received were examined. Then it reads:"i have discussed the matter with the local officers and persons who are in the know of the above temple matters. After examining all aspects a list of eligible persons is enclosed alongwith their bio-data. The panel of names is submitted for perusal. "the names are 12 in number. They are as follows: 1. Sri y. k. l. swanry 2. Sri narasimhaswamy 3. Sri b. v. balasubramanyam, b. e. 4. Sri s. b. mahamhappa 5. Sri mugur nanjundaswamy 6. Sri hejjige ramaiah 7. Sri r. a. mahadevaswamy 8. Sri k. s. nanjaiah 9. Sri l. Mahadevappa 10. sri u. Subba rao 11. sri sampath 12. The pradhan archak of the temple. The language used in the said letter though innocuous, there is a purpose in our referring to it because much turns on the same. Sri mugur nanjundaswamy 6. Sri hejjige ramaiah 7. Sri r. a. mahadevaswamy 8. Sri k. s. nanjaiah 9. Sri l. Mahadevappa 10. sri u. Subba rao 11. sri sampath 12. The pradhan archak of the temple. The language used in the said letter though innocuous, there is a purpose in our referring to it because much turns on the same. No doubt, what had been stated here is "the panel of names submitted for perusal". ( 4 ) WITH this we go on to the reply that has emanated from the secretary, revenue department, Bangalore, addressed to the commissioner for endowments. The said letter reads:government of Karnataka No. Rd 252 met 90 Karnataka government secretariat vidhana soudha, Bangalore. Dated: 14-8-1990 from the secretary, revenue department, Bangalore-560 001. To the endowment commissioner, Bangalore. Sir, sub: Constitution of dharmadharshis committee to Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple, nanjangud, Mysore district. Ref: your d. o. letter No. Adm. 6/44/90-91, dated 13-7-1990. With reference to above, on the subject, I am directed to suggest the following names for being nominated as dharmadharshis of Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple, nanjangud, Mysore district for a period of three years, 1) Sri k. Govindaraju shetty, municipal councillor, nanjangud convenor 2) Sri chidambara aradhya, nanjangud member 3) Sri nagaraju, ex.-municipal councillor, nanjangud member 4) Dr. Shivarudraiah, nanjangud member 5) Smt. Sarvamangala, nanjangud member 6) Sri kalappa, nanjangud member 7) Sri l. Nagappa, nanjangud member 8) Sri srikantaprad, advocate, nanjangud member 9) Sri mahadevaiah, nanjangud member 10) Sri d. s. venkatramanaswamy s/o siddaiah, khb colony, nanjangud member 11) Sri h. r. manjuoath, nanjangud member 12) Sri s. Krishnappa, nanjangud member 13) Sri pradhan archak of the temple member action taken may please be intimated to the government immediately. "thereafter on 30-8-1990, the following notification came to be issued: notification"sub: reconstitution of the committee of dharmahdarshis to Sri srikanteshwaras- wamy temple, nanjangud, Mysore district. Ref:l. No. Dvs (l) p and sst 48/90-91, dated 22-6-1990 of the deputy commissioner, mysore. 2. Government letter No. Rp. 250 mit 90, dated 14-8-1990. The term of the committee of dharmadhashis of Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple, nanjangud, constituted in this office notification No. Adm 6 cr 57/1987-88, dated 16-6-1987 has expired on 27-6-1990. Consequently, the following are appointed as dhannadharshis for a period of three years from the date of notification. 2. Government letter No. Rp. 250 mit 90, dated 14-8-1990. The term of the committee of dharmadhashis of Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple, nanjangud, constituted in this office notification No. Adm 6 cr 57/1987-88, dated 16-6-1987 has expired on 27-6-1990. Consequently, the following are appointed as dhannadharshis for a period of three years from the date of notification. 1) Sri k. Govindaraju setty, municipal councillor, nanjangud 2) Sri chidambara aradhya, nanjangud 3) Sri nagaraju, ex-municipal councillor, nanjangud 4) Dr. Shivarudraiah, nanjangud 5) Smt. Sarvamangalamba, nanjangud 6) Sri kalappa, nanjangud 7) Sri l. Nagappa, nanjangud 8) Sri srikantaprasad, advocate, nanjangud 9) Sri mahadevaiah, nanjangud 10) Sri d. s. venkatramanaswamy s/o siddaiah, khb colony, nanjangud 11) Sri h. r. manjunath, nanjangud 12) Sri s. Krishnappa, nanjangud 13) pradhan archak, Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple, nanjangud Sri k. Govindaraja shetty is appointed as convenor of the temple. Sd/- commissioner for endowments, Bangalore. "one thing is striking. On a perusal of the letter of the secretary, revenue department, dated 14-8-1990 and the impugned notification dated 30-8-1990 i. e. , the very names suggested by the secretary, revenue department or in other words directed to be suggested, have been accepted by the commissioner. Be that so. Under these circumstances, the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners wherein several grounds have been raised attacking this notification of 30-8-1990. Inter alia it is contended in the grounds that the impugned notification is arbitrary and actuated by mala fides and it suffers from total lack of jurisdiction and made with oblique motive. More importantly what was raised in the grounds and what is argued before us by Mr. A. k. subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners is two-fold, namely, (1) under Section 6 of the Karnataka religious and charitable institutions Act, 1927, the power of appointment of dharmadharshis is vested in the government. That power has been statutorily delegated in favour of the commissioner, because Section 6 provides for that delegation. Where, therefore, the power has been delegated in favour of the commissioner, he should have applied his mind and come to an independent conclusion as to who should compose the committee of dharmadharshis instead, what he had done is, he had merely taken orders from the secretary, revenue department and abdicated his statutory functions and followed the dictates of the secretary, revenue department. Much more than that, the secretary for revenue himself does not suggest. Much more than that, the secretary for revenue himself does not suggest. He would state "i am directed to suggest". Therefore, it would be patently clear that there was some other force working behind. Whoever were responsible for the same, it is certain that the commissioner has not exercised his statutory functions. Therefore, the order is bad in law and (2) in asmuchas government order No. Rd 253 met 68, dated 13-12-1968 relating to appointment of dharmadharshis in muzrai institutions, limits the number to 12, the commissioner should not have appointed 13 dharmadharshis. ( 5 ) LEARNED government advocate, Sri n. k. gupta, is not able to support the notification, nor is he in a position to urge that there has been an independent application of mind by the commissioner. ( 6 ) MR. Shivappa, learned counsel for the members of the committee, who have been appointed under the impugned notification, tried to support the notification of the commissioner by contending that Section 3 of the said act states, the chief controlling authority in all matters connected with muzrai institutions is vested in the government. Where, therefore, for the proper administration of the institution, if the government makes suggestions and if those suggestions are acceptable to the commissioner, it cannot be contended that there has been an abdication of statutory power. As regards the second of the arguments, g. o. No. Rd 253 met 68, dated 13-12-1968 in relation to appointment of dharmadharshis in muzrai institutions, Mr. Shivappa submits that it will have no application to a scheduled institution like the temple in question. The rules under the Karnataka religious and charitable institutions regulation classifies all the institutions into four categories, namely, a: scheduled institutions; b: major institutions; c: minor inst. tutions having annual income ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 1,000/- and d: minor institutions having an annual income of less than Rs. 100/ -. Therefore, in the case of a scheduled institution this government order cannot apply and the power of the commissioner to appoint 13 dharmadharshis is not taken away. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the above arguments, two questions which requires consideration are: (I)WHETHER there is an abdication of the statutory power by the commissioner? And (ii) whether to a scheduled institution like the temple in question, the committee could consist of more than 12 dharmadharshis? ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the above arguments, two questions which requires consideration are: (I)WHETHER there is an abdication of the statutory power by the commissioner? And (ii) whether to a scheduled institution like the temple in question, the committee could consist of more than 12 dharmadharshis? ( 8 ) AS regards the second of the question, we may straightaway say that having regard to the regulation it is very clear that g. o, No. Rd 253 met 68, dated 13-12-1968 in relation to appointment of dharmadharshis in muzrai institutions cannot apply to scheduled institutions. We will now extract the relevant portion of that government order:"extract from page 65 of muzrai manual rules relating to appointment of dharmadharshis in muzrai institutions:- g. o. No. Rd 253 met 68, dated 13-12-1968 enhancing the No. Of dharmadharshis from 9 co 12 in major institutions and from 7 to 9 in minor institutions Rule 6: the appointment, powers and duties of dharmadharshis will be regulated as below:- 1) in the case of scheduled institutions, the dharmadharshis will be appointed by government on the recommendation of the muzrai commissioner, while in the case of the muzrai institutions, referred to under Rule 1, clause (c) the appointment of dharmadharshis will be made by the deputy commissioner and of those coming under Rule 1, clause (b) by the muzrai commissioner. 2) dharmadharshis shall be selected from among persons interested in the proper management of the institutions. The number of dharmadharshis shall not be more than 12 for a major institution or a group of - institutions, and not more than 9 for a minor institution. One member of ead committee will be appointed as its convenor. All correspondence on behalf of the committee will be carried on by the convenor. "what this government order talks is that there shall not be more than 12 dharmadharshii for a major institution. The institution in question, namely, Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple at nanjangud, is not a major institution. On the; contrary, it falls under category a of Rule 1, namely, scheduled institutions. That will be dear from following extract:"classification of institutions: 1. Muzrai institutions will be classified as follows: a. Scheduled institutions, viz. , 1. The Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple at nanjangud. Xx xx xx b. Major institutions, viz. , Those getting annual income of Rs. On the; contrary, it falls under category a of Rule 1, namely, scheduled institutions. That will be dear from following extract:"classification of institutions: 1. Muzrai institutions will be classified as follows: a. Scheduled institutions, viz. , 1. The Sri srikanteshwaraswamy temple at nanjangud. Xx xx xx b. Major institutions, viz. , Those getting annual income of Rs. 1,000/- and above, and such other institutions of importance as may be specified from tune to time, as coming under the category of muzrai institutions. C. Minor institution, viz. , Those having annual income ranging from Rs. 100 to 1,000/ -. D. Minor institutions, viz. , Those having an annual income of less than Rs. 100/-". therefore, the commissioner will have power to appoint more than 12 dharmadharshis to the temple in question. ( 9 ) NOW, we take up the important question whether the commissioner had abdicated his statutory power. It is common case before us that the power of appointment, contained under section 6, of the dharmadharshis though statutority is oven to the government, the same had been delegated to muzrai commissioner, namely, in this case the commissioner for endowments. At this stage we may quote Section 6 of the Karnataka religious and charitable institutions Act, 1927:"6. Appointment of dharmadharshis and nazarins:- the government may appoint dhannadharshis or nazarins of works, as the case may be, to manage the effect of one or more muzrai institutions and, by rules framed in this behalf, determine the manner of selection, fix the term of office and regulate the powers duties of such dhannadharshis and nazarins. The government may delegate to the muzrai commissioner or the deputy commissioner, the power of appointing dharmadharshis or nazarins of wakfs in respect of any institution or class of institutions. "therefore, the combined effect of Section 6 as well as r. 6 would be to vest the power of appointment of dharmadharshis only in the commissioner. This proposition is all evident. In view of this proposition, the question here would be whether the commissioner has so chosen to exercise the statutory power. We are somewhat surprised when the commissioner wrote a letter on 13-7-1990 to the secretary to government, revenue department submitting the panel of names for perusal. This proposition is all evident. In view of this proposition, the question here would be whether the commissioner has so chosen to exercise the statutory power. We are somewhat surprised when the commissioner wrote a letter on 13-7-1990 to the secretary to government, revenue department submitting the panel of names for perusal. Of course, as we have styled it earlier though the language used is innocuous submitting tine panel for perusal, it cannot be denied that this letter was in response to a reference g. o. No. Rd 253 met 68, dated 8-7-1990. Obviously the secretary to revenue department must have asked the commissioner as to what he proposes to do. We do not know under what authority the government has asked. However, what is relied on by the government Advocate is Section 3 of the Karnataka (religious and charitable) institutions Act, which reads thus:"3. Chief controlling authority: the chief controlling authority in all matters connected with muzrai institutions is vested in the government. "all that is stated in this Section is the chief controlling authority is vested in the government. That is very different from exercise of statutory function. Although the commissioner is a delegatee, so long as the delegation stands, we are unable to see as to how the government could say by virtue of being chief controlling authority that the delegatee must act subject to instructions. We have already extracted the names which forms part of Annexure 'a' letter dated 13-7-1990 written by the commissioner for endowments to the secretary, revenue department. Those 12 names whether considered by the secretary concerned or not, we do not know. However, a letter from the secretary to the commissioner for endowment dated 14-8-1990 which we have already extracted above puts one matter beyond doubt, that he was trying to interfere with the statutory power of the commissioner, though not by himself, but at the direction of someone else. Who that someone else is, we do not pause to consider. All that we want to emphasize is that here is a secretary to revenue department, who would write a letter, though couched in the language of suggestion, but practically trying to dictate 13 names. Not one of the names suggested by the commissioner on 13-7-1990 finds a place in the letter dated 14-8-1990 written by the secretary, revenue department. All that we want to emphasize is that here is a secretary to revenue department, who would write a letter, though couched in the language of suggestion, but practically trying to dictate 13 names. Not one of the names suggested by the commissioner on 13-7-1990 finds a place in the letter dated 14-8-1990 written by the secretary, revenue department. It is this suggestion which takes the place in the notification dated 30-8-1990. It constitutes an interesting reading in that the preamble in the notification- item-2 cited is this government letter dated 14- 8-1990. Therefore, this is a proof positive that it was at the dictate of the government, the commissioner had acted in this case. Why the commissioner chose to drop those earlier 12 names, it pauses one's apprehension. Of course, if he had exercised his mind independently and chosen to disregard the earlier names that would be a different matter. That is not at all the case here. He merely thought that the government has directed to appoint these persons and therefore the notification come to be issued. Under these circumstances the only conclusion possible is to agree with the learned counsel Sri a. k. subbaiah that the commissioner has abdicated his statutory function. ( 10 ) AS we have stated already, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Shivappa that merely because under Section 3, the government is made chief controlling authority with reference to muzrai institutions, it can still interfere with the statutory discretion. Of course, if the delegation is limited subject to the control of the government, that would be a different matter. That is not the case put forth before us. Therefore, we take it that the delegation under Section 6 of the Karnataka religious and charitable institutions Act, in favour of the commissioner for endowments is absolute and unqualified. If that be so, the commissioner had gone wrong in merely accepting the suggestion of the secretary for revenue department. If the statutory functionaries behave at the dictate of someone else, then the very purpose of entrustment is lost and the intention of the legislature is thwarted. Accordingly, we quash the notification dated 30-8-1990. If that be so, the commissioner had gone wrong in merely accepting the suggestion of the secretary for revenue department. If the statutory functionaries behave at the dictate of someone else, then the very purpose of entrustment is lost and the intention of the legislature is thwarted. Accordingly, we quash the notification dated 30-8-1990. ( 11 ) THOUGH a prayer for mandamus is asked for to appoint 12 persons suggested in the letter dated 13-7-1990, we cannot grant that prayer, since as we pointed out above, power of appointment is conferred on the commissioner under the statute. He has to apply his mind independently and make appointments afresh. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. ( 12 ) BY independent application of mind, the commissioner shall make appointments in terms of this judgment and orders in this regard shall be passed on or before 15-7-1991. Communicate the order to the commissioner for endowments at once. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the order passed in writ petition, no orders are necessary in the writ appeal and it is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .