Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 434/95-1/A3, dated 13.1.1995. The petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Sri Suyambulingaswami Tirukoil situate at Overy Village, Radhapuram taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. A criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 4 of 1995 for offences under Sections 324, 435 and 3071. P.C. on the file of Overy Police Station and he was arrested on 5.1.1995. It is seen from the order in Criminal M.P. No. 93 of 1995 dated 11.1.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli Division that the petitioner was released on bail on 11.1.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that after he was released on bail, he is functioning as the hereditary trustee of the temple in question and on 12.1.1995 he celebrated the festival in the temple. By the impugned order dated 13.1.1995 passed by the first respondent under section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), one Mr. C. Danapal, Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mutharamman Tirukoil, Kulasekarapattinam, Tiruchendur Circle has been appointed as a fit person of the temple in question. The first respondent passed the abovesaid order under Section 54(3) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was in Palayamkottai Central Jail from 5.1.1995 in connection with the Crime No. 4 of 1995, there is a vacancy in the office of the hereditary trustees and therefore to carry out the day to day affairs of the temple in question the second respondent has to be appointed as the fit person for the Arulmighu Sri Suyambulingeswami Thirukoil. Section 54(3) of the Act reads as follows: “When a permanent or temporary vacancy occurs in such an office and there is a dispute respecting the right of succession to the office, or When such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately, or when a hereditary trustee is a minor and has no guardian, fit and willing, to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian: or When a hereditary trustee is by reason of unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity unfit for performing the functions of the trustee, the Deputy Commissioner may appoint a fit person to perform the functions of the trustee of the institution until the disability of the hereditary trustee ceases or another hereditary trustee succeeds to the office or for such shorter terms as the Deputy Commissioner may direct. EXPLANATION:— In making any appointment under this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner shall have due regard to the claims of members of the family, if any entitled to the succession.” To enable the first respondent to appoint fit person under Section 54(3) of the Act there must be either a permanent or temporary vacancy or there must be a dispute regarding the right to succession of the office of the hereditary trustee. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was released on bail on 11.1.1995 and the impugned order was passed on 13.1.1995. Therefore, on the date when the first respondent passed the impugned order there was no vacancy, either permanent or temporary in the office of the hereditary trustee. No doubt, the petitioner was arrested on 5.1.1995 and he was in custody till 11.1.1995. As the materials on record clearly go to show that the petitioner was released on bail on 11.1.1995 and that thereafter he was looking after the affairs of the temple, it cannot be said that a vacancy, either permanent or temporary, in the office of the hereditary trustee had arisen in the present case. Therefore the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 54(3) of the Act. Hence the order challenged in this writ petition is illegal and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.