Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.- The petitioner in the Writ Petition and the criminal revision case was the managing trustee of Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy Temple at Avuluvaripalem, Tenali Taluk, Guntur District. The Temple is an excepted temple having five hereditary trustees one of whom is the petitioner. In an election held between the five hereditary trustees, the petitioner was elected as managing trustee on 8th December, 1961, and he was functioning as such. The 1st respondent in the writ petition is the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department, Vijayawada. By his memo. No. A-2/11/19/63 (Administration) dated 6th March, 1964, the 1st respondent asked the petitioner to produce the accounts of the temple on or before 19th March, 1964, at his office at Vijayawada. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner was, at the time engaged in attending to the grading and packing of tobacco and that he had sent a reply on 14th March, 1964, by registered post to the 1st respondent stating that his work would be over by the end of April, 1964 and requesting that a date might be fixed in the month of May for the production of the accounts of the temple. In that letter, the petitioner also stated that he was not aware of any prior communication addressed to him. But the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department (1st respondent), by his order dated 20th March, 1964, framed the following charges against the petitioner. “(1) That he has failed to produce the accounts and records of several opportunities and notice given to him; (2) That he has refused to honour this office communication sent by registered post; (3) That he has wilfully disobeyed the lawful orders of the Deputy Commissioner” The order proceeded to state “The cover containing the said notices has been returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the addressee is not available. Therefore, he was again afforded another opportunity by adjourning the enquiry to 19th March, 1964. He had received the notice and sent a letter informing that he is engaged in attending the grading and packing of tobacco. Therefore, he was again afforded another opportunity by adjourning the enquiry to 19th March, 1964. He had received the notice and sent a letter informing that he is engaged in attending the grading and packing of tobacco. Even on this day he has not appeared.” By the same order, the Deputy Commissioner stated that he felt that it was not safe to keep Sri Sammata Venkateswarlu (the petitioner) in office any longer and that, in those circumstances he was constrained to place the petitioner, the managing trustee, under suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. The petitioner was requested to hand over charge of the accounts, records and other properties and articles of the Devasthanam to Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Executive Officer of Temples at Donepude, who by the same order was appointed as the fit person under section 45(3) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the place of the suspended managing trustee. Sri S. Venkateswarlu, the fit person, was requested to take charge from the petitioner the managing trustee. The order further directed that in case the petitioner evaded to hand over charge within ten days from the date of receipt of the order by him, the fit person, Sri S. Venkateswarlu was to advance the necessary money and initiate proceedings against the petitioner under section 87 of the Act before the First Glass Magistrate, Tenali, for recovery of possession of all the accounts, records and registers of the temple. The order further directed the petitioner to state why he should not be dismissed for his wilful neglect and disobedience of lawful orders and the petitioner was asked to send his explanation before 20th April, 1964. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner’s explanation to the charges would be considered by the Deputy Commissioner at his office at Suryaraopet on 25th April, 1964, and that, if no explanation was received from the petitioner, it would be considered that he had no explanation to offer and that further steps would be taken to dismiss him from the office. The petitioner was also informed that the question of vacating the suspension order made against him would be considered on 25th April, 194, in case the petitioner handed over charge of all the accounts and the records of the temple to the fit person and in case the petitioner produced the accounts and records for inspection in the Deputy Commissioner’s office before the date of enquiry i.e., 25th April, 1964. S. Venkateswarlu, who was appointed as the fit person, is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. He filed M.P.No. 70 of 1964 in the Court of the. Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tenali under section 87 of the Act for directing the respondent therein i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition and the Criminal Revision Case before us, to deliver possession of the temple records to him and for such other orders as are deemed fit and proper. That application under section 87 of the Act was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds. It was contended that the fit person had no right either to assume management of the temple or to apply under section 87 of the Act. Since all the five trustees of the temple are hereditary trustees the petitioner, in M.P. No. 70 of 1964 could not be appointed as a fit person as he is not a hereditary trustee. By order dated 22nd April, 1965, the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tenali over-ruled the objections of the managing hereditary trustee and he was directed to hand over the records to the temple to the fit person. Criminal Revision Case No. 331 of 1965 was filed against the said order. When the Criminal Revision Case came up for final hearing before our learned brother, Mohamed Mirza, J., it appears to have been contended before him on behalf of the respondent (the fit person) that it was not open to the petitioner in a proceeding under section 87 of the Act to question the validity of the order of suspension. The learned Judge, by his order dated 24th August, 1965, directed the Criminal Revision case to be posted before a Bench since there is no direct ruling on that point. Writ Petition No. 2037 of 1965 was filed by the managing hereditary trustee, Sammata Venkateswarlu, in December, 1965. The learned Judge, by his order dated 24th August, 1965, directed the Criminal Revision case to be posted before a Bench since there is no direct ruling on that point. Writ Petition No. 2037 of 1965 was filed by the managing hereditary trustee, Sammata Venkateswarlu, in December, 1965. When the Criminal Revision Case was heard in part by us, we were told that the writ petition also was pending against the order in O.A. No. 62 of 1964 dated 20th March, 1964, of the Deputy Commissioner framing charges against the petitioner and suspending him pending enquiry and appointing S. Venkateswarlu as the fit person. So, we directed the writ petition also to be posted and we heard both the writ petition and the Criminal Revision Case together. Mr. Kanyaka Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued three points before us: (1) The Deputy Commissioner did not give any notice to the petitioner before passing the order of interim suspension and appointing the fit person to take charge of the accounts and other records and properties of temple. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner had violated the principles of natural justice and his order is liable to be set aside on that ground; (2) At the time of the order of suspension was passed and S. Venkateswarlu was appointed as the fit person, there were four other hereditary trustees who are entitled to be in possession and management of the temple and its records and properties. The Deputy Commissioner would therefore, have no jurisdiction at that stage to appoint a fit person to take charge as the managing trustee from the petitioner or to claim custody of accounts and records and manage the temple and its properties; and (3) The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 45 of the Act by framing charges against the petitioner, the hereditary managing trustee, or to pass an interim order of suspension and appoint a fit person for this temple as admittedly there is no Area Committee in existence, which has jurisdiction over this temple. We shall consider the third point first. We shall consider the third point first. Section 7 of the Act provides that: “Section 7.- There shall be the following classes of authorities under this Act, namely: (a) The Commissioner; (b) The Deputy Commissioner; (c) Assistant Commissioner; and (d) Area Committees.” Section 8 empowers the Government to appoint the Commissioner and such number of Deputy and Assistant Commissioner as they think fit. Section 11 defines the territorial jurisdiction, powers and duties of Assistant Commissioners. Sections 12 to 17 deal with the constitution of Area Committees, the power of the Government to make rules regarding the convening of meetings of the Area Committees and also for the abolition of an existing Area Committee. It is necessary to refer to section 12, which is as follows; “12. (1) The Government.............. (a) Shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, constitute an Area Committee for all temples situated in an Assistant Commissioner’s division or part thereof other than temple included in the list published under section 38, and (b) may likewise abolish any Area Committee constitute under clause (a), provided that before doing so, a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the Committee to show cause against its abolition. (2) An Area Committee shall have jurisdiction over specific endowments attached to the temples for which it is constituted, other than specific endowments included in the list published under section 38: Provided that where a specific endowment is attached to two or more temples comprised within the jurisdiction of two or more Area Committees, the Commissioner shall decide as to which of the Area Committees shall have jurisdiction over the specific endowment: Provided further that where a specific endowment is attached partly to one or more temples included in the list published under section 38 and partly to one or more temples not so included, only the Commissioner shall have jurisdiction over the specific endowment and no Area Committee shall have such jurisdiction.” This section provides for the constitution of Area Committee having jurisdiction over certain temples not included in the list published under section 38 and also empowers the Government to abolish any Area Committee after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Committee to show cause against its abolition. Section 38 directs the Commissioner to publish in the prescribed manner a list of the religious institutions whose annual income as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under section 76 is not less than twenty thousand rupees. An Area Committee constituted under section 12 will have no jurisdiction over any temple included in the list published under section 38. Section 13 provides for the strength of Area Committee, term of office and the disqualification of its members. Section 14 provides that the Assistant Commissioner of the division shall be the Chairman of the concerned Area Committee. Section 15 empowers the Government to make rules regarding the convening of meetings of Area Committees, the quorum for, and the conduct of business, at such meetings, and all matters relating to the transaction of their business. Section 17 provides: “17. Where an Area Committee has been abolished under clause (6) of sub-section (1) of section 12, a new Area Committee shall be constituted within six months of its abolition and till then its powers and duties shall be exercised and discharged by the Assistant Commissioner concerned.” Next we have to refer to section 45 of the Act under which the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. It reads as follows: “Section 45.- (1) The Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction, and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution, may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustee thereof...... (a) for persistent default in the submission of budgets, accounts, reports or returns or........ (b) for wilful disobedience of any lawful order issued under the provisions of this Act by the Government, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, or.......... (c) for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the trust, or............ (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution or................ (e) for unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits him for discharging the functions of the trustee. (c) for any malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty in respect of the trust, or............ (d) for any misappropriation of, or improper dealing with, the properties of the institution or................ (e) for unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity which unfits him for discharging the functions of the trustee. (2) When it is proposed to take action under sub-section (1) the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be shall frame charges against the trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charges, of testing the evidence adduced against him and of adducing evidence in his favour; and the order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the charges framed against the trustee, his explanation and this finding on each charge with the reasons therefore Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall also consult the Area Committee before passing the final order under sub-section (1). (3) Pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the trustee. (4) It shall be open to an Assistant Commissioner to move the Deputy Commissioner to take action under sub-section (1) in respect of any trustee of an institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction and to place the trustee under suspension pending the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3). (5) A trustee who is suspended, removed or dismissed under sub-section (1) may within one month from the date of the receipt of the order of suspension, removal or dismissal, appeal against the order to the Commissioner it was passed by a Deputy Commissioner and to the Government if it was passed by the Commissioner.” It is seen from clause (1) of the said section that the Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which Area Committee has jurisdiction and the Commissioner in the case of any religious institution may suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustees thereof on certain grounds specified therein. The same clause refers to three kinds of punishment viz., (1) suspension, (2) removal and (3) dismissal, whether the trustee be hereditary or non-hereditary trustee. The same clause refers to three kinds of punishment viz., (1) suspension, (2) removal and (3) dismissal, whether the trustee be hereditary or non-hereditary trustee. Clause (2) directs the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, to frame charges against the concerned trustee and give him an opportunity of meeting the charges. Clause (3) empowers the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, pending disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, to place the trustee under suspension:: and appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the trustee. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is as follows: Admittedly, there is no Area Committee in existence on the date of the order in question having jurisdiction over the suit temple though at one time there was inexistence such an Area Committee, but it was abolished long ago under section 12 (1)(b) of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the Counter-affidavit sworn to by Mr.G. Subba Reddy, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Administration) Department, it is stated that the functions of the Area Committee are being exercised by the Assistant Commissioner (apparently under section 17 of the Act) thus, admittedly there was no Area Committee having jurisdiction over the temple in question on the date when proceedings under section 45 of the Act were taken by the Deputy Commissioner. We are told during the course of the arguments that the Area Committee was abolished several years ago and its duties are being performed by the concerned Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to take action under section 45 and only the Commissioner will have such jurisdiction. But the learned third Government Pleader strongly relied upon section 38 of the Act, which makes a distinction only between temples whose annual income as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under section 76 is not less than Rs. 20,000 and other temples whose income is less than Rs. 20,000. But the learned third Government Pleader strongly relied upon section 38 of the Act, which makes a distinction only between temples whose annual income as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under section 76 is not less than Rs. 20,000 and other temples whose income is less than Rs. 20,000. Therefore, it is argued that section 45 has to be read with section 38, if so read the Commissioner will have jurisdiction to take action under section 45 with respect to temples included in the list published under section 38 i.e., whose annual income is not less than twenty thousand rupees and the Deputy Commissioner will have jurisdiction to take action under section 45 with regard to all other temples i.e., temples whose annual income is less than twenty thousand rupees. He submitted that that is the scope of section 45. In the present case, the learned Third Government Pleader pointed out that it is not suggested that the annual income of the temple in question is twenty thousand rupees or more. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to take action under section 45. So far as the power of the Deputy Commissioner to take action under section 45 is concerned, clause (1) of the said action specifically refers to "any religious institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction." It means that the Deputy Commissioner will have jurisdiction only if there is an Area Committee in existence, which has jurisdiction over the temple in question. The use of the word " has " in our view is a clear indication that there must be an Area Committee having jurisdiction over the temple before the Deputy Commissioner will have jurisdiction to take action under section 45. But in the present case admittedly there was no Area Committee at all having jurisdiction over the suit temple and the concerned Assistant Commissioner is exercising the functions of an Area Committee as provided by section 17 of the Act. If the argument of the learned Third Government Pleader is to be accepted, we have to read for the expression "over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction if an Area Committee were to be constituted." We do not find any warrant for reading or understanding clause (1) in that manner. If the argument of the learned Third Government Pleader is to be accepted, we have to read for the expression "over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction if an Area Committee were to be constituted." We do not find any warrant for reading or understanding clause (1) in that manner. Since there was admittedly no Area Committee in existence, which has jurisdiction over the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswamy, Avulavaripalem, Tenali Taluk, Guntur District, we hold that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 45 of the Act and to frame charges against the petitioner or to pass an interim order of suspension under clause (3) of section 45 and appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the managing trustee, who is the petitioner. It is further argued by the learned Third Government Pleader that under section 10(2) of the Act, the Commissioner may delegate any of the powers conferred or duties imposed on him by or under the Act except those under sections 18, 19, 38, 39, 52, 56, 61, 64 or 76(2) in respect of any area or of any class or group of institutions in the State or any area therein to a Deputy Commissioner and that in the present case, the commissioner has in fact, done so, by Order No. 361, dated 16th August, 1953. Section 10(2) and the said order are as follows: "10. (2) The Commissioner may delegate any of the powers conferred or duties imposed on him by or under this Act including the powers and duties of an Assistant Commissioner which may be exercised by the Commissioner under the proviso to section 11, sub-section (2) but not including the powers and duties of the Commissioner under sections 18, 19, 38, 39, 52, 56, 61, 64 or 76(2) in respect of any area or of any class or group of institutions in the State or any area therein to a Deputy Commissioner subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by general or special order, lay down and subject also to such, limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation. " The order of the Commissioner reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 10(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 the Commissioners hereby delegates to the Deputy Commissioners, the powers conferred and the duties imposed on him by or under section 45 of the Act over the trustees of the religious institutions published in the list under section 38 of the Act except the Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanams and the specific endowments attached thereto. The above delegation is subject to the provisions of rule 4 of the rules framed under section 10(2) which empowers the Commissioner to revise any order passed by a Deputy Commissioner. " Clause (2) of section 10 as well as the order of the Commissioner specifically referred to the trustees of the religious institutions published in the list under section 38 of the Act except the Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanams and the specific endowments attached thereto. The Temple in question is not included in the list put fished by the Commissioner under section 38 of the Act. Therefore, the said Order No. 361, dated 16th August, 1953, of the Commissioner does not support the argument of the learned Third Government Pleader on this point. It may be noted in this context that this point does not appear to have been suggested in the counter-affidavit in the writ petition. We cannot, therefore, accept this argument. In the above view, it is not necessary for us to express our opinion on the other two points argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It follows that the writ petition is allowed and the order of the 1st respondent i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Vijayawada in O.A.No. 62 of 1964 dated 20th March, 1964, is quashed. The parties will bear their own costs in this writ petition. As already noticed in the beginning of this judgment, the Criminal Revision case is filed against the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tenali, in M.P.No. 70 of 1964 filed by the fit person, S. Venkateswarlu under section 87 of the Act to direct the hereditary trustee to deliver possession of the temple records to him and for other orders. As already noticed in the beginning of this judgment, the Criminal Revision case is filed against the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tenali, in M.P.No. 70 of 1964 filed by the fit person, S. Venkateswarlu under section 87 of the Act to direct the hereditary trustee to deliver possession of the temple records to him and for other orders. Section 87 provides that where a person has been appointed to discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act and such person is resisted in or prevented from,obtaining possession of the religious institution or of the records, accounts and properties thereof, by a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession or by any person claiming or deriving title from such trustee, office-holder or servant, not being a person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account or on account of some person not being such trustee, office-holder or servant, any Magistrate of the first class in whose jurisdiction such institution or property is situated shall, on application by the person so appointed and on the production of the order of appointment and where the application is for possession of property, of a certificate by the Commissioner in the prescribed from setting forth that the property in question belongs to the religious institution, direct delivery to the person appointed of the possession of such religious institution, or the records, accounts and properties thereof as the case may be. The hereditary trustee’s objection to the grant of the prayer in M.P. No. 70 of 1964 was that theorder of suspension passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the appointment of S. Venkateswarlu as the fit person under section 45 are illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the application under section 87 filed by the fit person is not maintainable. In Writ Petition No. 2037 of 1965, we have held that the order of the Deputy Commissioner suspending the petitioner from the office of the managing trustee pending enquiry into the charges and appointing Sajja Venkateswarlu as the fit person to discharge the functions of the managing trustee is without jurisdiction. It follows that the petition filed by the fit person is not maintainable under section 87 of the Act. It follows that the petition filed by the fit person is not maintainable under section 87 of the Act. Therefore the Criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 22nd April, 1965 passed by the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tenali in M.P.No. 70 of 1964 on his file is set aside and the said M.P. is dismissed. G.S.M. ----- Writ Petition allowed; Revision also allowed.