Judgment :- K.A. SWAMI, C.J., 1. Though the writ appeal is posted for consideration of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed, we have taken up the writ appeal itself for; hearing as the writ appeal can be disposed of for a short point. 2. The appellant in the writ appeal filed W.P. No. 910 of 1993 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from dealing with the matter except as per S. 26 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Learned Single Judge has held that it is the District Committee and the District Committee alone which has to enquire into as to whether the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition have become disqualified to continue as trustees. On such observation learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The contention raised before us is that even though the complaint is pending before the District Committee as filed by the Appellant/petitioner, it is the Assistant Commissioner, who is enquiring into the matter and as the Assistant Commissioner is the Secretary of the District Committee, he has no role to play in the proceedings of the Committee, as such and he is not competent to hold an enquiry. Hence learned Single Judge is not justified in refusing to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus. 3. In this regard it is relevant to notice that under sub-S. (3) of S. 26 of the Act it is the District Committee which has to decide whether a trustee has become subject to any of the disqualifications prescribed under the Act. The Assistant Commissioner under S. 7-D(2) of the Act is the Secretary of the District Committee which is also the Temple Administration Board. He is not a member of the District Board As such he is not entitled to participate as a member of the District Board nor is he entitled to hold an enquiry for the purpose of deciding the subject matter. He is not a member of the District Board As such he is not entitled to participate as a member of the District Board nor is he entitled to hold an enquiry for the purpose of deciding the subject matter. S. 7-G(3) of the Act specifically says that subject to the provisions of the Act, all questions which come before any meeting of the Temple Administration Board or the District Committee, as the case may be, shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present, and in the case of equality of votes, the Chairman or in his absence, any other person presiding over the meeting, shall have a second or casting vote, Therefore the Assistant Commissioner, who is only the Secretary of the Board, cannot have any authority in the matter. Now the Assistant Commissioner is not enquiring into the complaint filed by the petitioner/appellant to disqualify the respondents 3 and 4, but he is only gathering information or material on the complaint filed by the petitioner in order to place it before the Committee. Any information gathered by the Assistant Commissioner unless it is put to the parties concerned in the proceedings before the Committee, the same cannot be relied upon by the District Committee. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner/appellant is not justified in contending that the Assistant Commissioner is conducting an enquiry into the complaint filed by him, Therefore, learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition. However, we make it clear that the Assistant Commissioner has no authority to conduct as enquiry into the complaint filed by the petitioner/appellant to disqualify the respondents 3 and 4, The complaint filed by the petitioner/appellant has to be enquired into only by the District Committee as per sub-S. (3) of S. 26 of the Act. Any information gathered by the Assistant Commissioner as the Secretary of the District Committee before it is relied upon, by the District Committee, the same has to be made available to the parties to the proceedings so that they can have opportunity to meet it. With those observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.