Order: In an application filed under section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the respondent herein claiming to be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sri Malleswaraswamy Vari Temple against the election of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the petitioner herein, it was contended that the respondent was not a legally elected Chairman, that the Commissioner had no power to delegate the Assistant Commissioner the power of appointment and that the election of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board of Trustees was also invalid, as it is contrary to rules. As stated earlier, this is a petition under section 87 of the Act wherein the relief sought was to direct the respondent to hand over the accounts and other records of the Temple, as the petitioner had been appointed Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Section 87 of the Act provides a speedy mode of relief to the officer appointed under the Act for the recovery of the properties of the Temple, records etc., from the previous trustees, etc. On application to the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall direct on the production of the order of appointment, delivery to the person appointed as aforesaid of the possession of such religious institution, or the records, accounts and properties thereof, as the case may be. One would expect regarding this section that the production of certificate by the Commissioner was the pre-requisite for an order under this section and the Magistrate was not justified in scrutinising the validity of the order made by the Commissioner before making any order under this section. But, a Bench of this Court in Kuntanukkala Satyanarayana v. Sri Ramalingeswaraswamy Temple represented by the Chairman, Board of Trustees, Venkataratnam1, has held that the objection as to the appointment of the Chairman not being valid has to be determined by the Magistrate, as it has been raised before the Magistrate for the purpose of jurisdiction. If the production of certificate that a person is elected as Chairman is challenged on the ground that it does not disclose valid election, then that question will go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and will have to be determined by him. If it is a valid election, then no other question arises and he would have to pass necessary orders under section 87 of the Act. If it is a valid election, then no other question arises and he would have to pass necessary orders under section 87 of the Act. But if it is not a valid election the “respondent would not be entitled to any order under section 87 of the Act.” In that View it has to be ascertained whether the objections raised in this petition, namely, as to the appointment of the Trustees, delegation of power and as to the election of the Chairman, are tenable and the Magistrate has answered them according to the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The first contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the Commissioner was not competent to delegate his powers to the Assistant Commissioner under section 11(3) of the Act. Section 11(3) of the Act reads thus; “The Commissioner may delegate to an Assistant Commissioner any of the powers conferred or duties imposed on the Commissioner by or under this Act (other than the powers and duties referred to in sections 18, 19, 38, 39, 52, 56, 61, 64 or 76(2) in respect of the division of the Assistant Commissioner or of any institutions or any class or group of institutions in that division, 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.” In the instant case, the delegation of powers by the Commissioner is made under section 19(3)(b) of the Act by his Order No. 111/63 D-3 dated 23rd March, 1963 and it has been mentioned therein that whereas the terms of the Area Committee of West Godavari Division expired by efflux of time and whereas it may take some time to constitute a committee afresh . . . . . the Commissioner after careful consideration of the matter, authorises the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 19(3)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, to exercise all the powers vested in the Area Committee and discharge all the functions under the provisions of the said Act as modified from time to time till new Area Committee members are appointed. The contention is that the provisions of section 19(3)(b) of the Act are not applicable as the Area Committee was no more existing at the time when the notification was made. The notification itself states that the term of the Area Committee had expired by efflux of time. It is contended that in those circumstances the only provision under which the Commissioner could exercise his powers to constitute Board of Trustees was under section 39 of the Act and, therefore, the delegation of powers to the Asistant Commissioner was bad. Section 19(3) shows that if the Commissioner is satisfied that an Area Committee is unable to discharge any power or duty, then the Commissioner may himself exercise such power or discharge such duty or authorise the Assistant Commissioner to do so. It pre-supposes the existence of an Area Committee. But, where an Area Committee has ceased to function either by efflux of time or for any other reason, then section 39 of the Act would be attracted. It is conceded that there is no provision in the Act to deal with the situation arising out of the expiry of the Area Committee by efflux of time. Be that as it may, section 19(3) of the Act is certainly attracted when the Area Committee is in force. Therefore, the objection on behalf of the petitioner that the delegation of power to the Assistant Commissioner was not in accordance with law, seem to be consistent with the provisions of the Act. The authorisation by the Commissioner was therefore, bad as not being in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As delegation of powers itself is not in accordance with law, the subsequent election of the Chairman is also hit by this improper delegation. It is not, therefore, necessary to go into the question whether the election of the Chairman is according to law or not. The petitioners succeed on the ground that the delegation of the power by the Commissioner is inconsistant with the provisions of the Act. The order of the lower Court is set aside. Petition allowed. K.N.R. ----- Revision allowed; order set aside.