Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 16. 1999 disqualifying the petitioner to act as non-heriditory trustee and Chairman of Board of Trustees to the Arulmigu Utchimi Makkali Ammal Temple. Tuticorin. 2. According to the petitioner, he was elected as Managing Trustee on 27. 1998. The second respondent seems to have filed a revision before the first respondent praying to cancel the order of the Assistant Commissioner. H.R. & C.E., Tuticorin, dated 112. 1997 appointing the petitioner herein as a Trustee of the said temple. The first respondent by his order dated 16. 1999 allowed the said revision, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as a Trustee to the said temple. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring the order in W.P.No. 2196 of 1969, dated 110. 1970, has submitted that the second respondent has no locus-standi to challenge the petitioner’s appointment by filing the revision petition before the first respondent. He has also submitted that the petitioner is not disqualified merely because some criminal cases are pending against him. 4. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is a third party to the proceeding, in which the petitioner was appointed as a Trustee and thereafter elected as Managing Trustee. In the said Order, referred to above, Palaniswamy. J., as he then was, after discussing the scope of Sub Section (7) of Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, has held that no third party to the proceedings before the lower authority has any locus-standi to prefer the revision but still it is open to the Commissioner to take action suo-motu. In this case, the Commissioner has entertained the revision filed by the second respondent and passed the order. In view of the said order passed in W.P.No. 2196 of 1969, dated 110. 1970, the order passed by the Commissioner, at the instance of the second respondent, cannot be sustained. If the Commissioner finds any disqualification or any other ground, he can invoke his powers suo-motu to cancel the order of appointment. 5. The first respondent has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has disqualified himself in view of the pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No. 258 of 1995. If the Commissioner finds any disqualification or any other ground, he can invoke his powers suo-motu to cancel the order of appointment. 5. The first respondent has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has disqualified himself in view of the pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No. 258 of 1995. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been convicted or sentenced in any criminal case on the date of passing of the order by the first respondent. Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Act, 1959 deals with qualifications of trustees. According to Section 26(1)(g) of the said Act, if as Trustee has been sentenced by a criminal court for an offence involving moral delinquence and such sentence not having been reversed or the offence pardoned then he shall be disqualified. In this case, admittedly the petitioner has not been sentenced in any criminal case and mere pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, cannot be construed as he has been sentenced. Hence, the ground on which the impugned order is passed, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in R.P.No. 3/99-0.2, dated 16. 1999 is set aside and the above writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos. 15455 of 1999 and 15456 of 1999 are closed.