Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed against the rejection of the application filed by the writ petitioners for leave to file an appeal against the order of the Deputy commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Salem, passed in O.A.No.8 of 1988 directing the settlement of a scheme under Sec.64(1) of the Act in respect of a religious institution, known as Sri Thanneerpandal Mahamuneeswarar Temple, situated in Varagurampatti Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Salem District. 2. Thepetitioners were not parties before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department. The Deputy Commissioner had framed a scheme for the institution in question on the ground that the temple was a community temple belonging to Kongu Vellala community of Nachipalayam village and one Kongu Vellala chosen from Kongu Vellalas of Elampulipalayam village and as such Trustees to be appointed on the basis of the clause incorporated in the Scheme framed O.A.No.8 of 1988. According to the petitioners, there was no publication in regard to the pendency of O.A.No.8 of 1988 and the public at large were not aware of the proceedings in O.A.No.8 of 1988. It is the further case of the petitioners that the institution is not a community temple, that it belongs to the entire village and all the villagers are entitled to represent the institution in question. Having come to know of the Scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners filed a regular appeal under Sec.64(1) of the Act 22 of 1959, in order to set aside the said Scheme and the said appeal was numbered as C.No.96966/91 and posted for admission on the leave application filed by the petitioners. This leave application was rejected by the learned Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, by order dated 22. 1993. In the order, the learned Commissioner has stated that all the formalities contemplated under the Rules framed under the relevant sections of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, had been followed by the Deputy Commissioner, Salem, before passing the final order which is appealed against. 1993. In the order, the learned Commissioner has stated that all the formalities contemplated under the Rules framed under the relevant sections of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, had been followed by the Deputy Commissioner, Salem, before passing the final order which is appealed against. The Commissioner has further observed that there was no complaint by the petitioners and that there was no notice as laid down under the Rules framed under Sec.64(1) of the Act, that she was in agreement with the views of the respondents before her that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was a judgment in rem and that there was no substance in the case of the petitioners. She distinguished the decision of S.Ramalingam, J. (as the learned Judge then was) dated 10. 1990 in W.P.No.10706 of 1982 in support of the order, as not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3. Mr. W.C.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the rejection of the application for leave to file the appeal by the Commissioner, was erroneous, and that the decision of S.Ramalingam, J. was squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner ought to have granted leave, directed numbering of the appeal and afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner on facts and in law. The learned counsel referred to Secs.69 and 70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act and submitted that under Sec.69 “any person aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under any of the preceding sections could file an appeal before the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E.”. Under Sec.70 “only any party [Italics supplied] aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. can file a suit”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are persons aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and they would attract the provisions of Sec.69 of the Act. The Commissioner was in error in refusing to grant leave. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are persons aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and they would attract the provisions of Sec.69 of the Act. The Commissioner was in error in refusing to grant leave. 4. Per contra, Mr.R.Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader for H.R. & C.E. Department, submitted that the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department found that the Deputy Commissioner had satisfied himself that the provisions of the Act and the Rules were followed, that there was sufficient notice to enable the general public to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and participate in the proceedings with regard to framing of the scheme and therefore the ultimate decision by the Commissioner was correct. According to the Special Government Pleader though the appeal had not been numbered, as such the learned Commissioner had gone into the question and found that the appeal had no merits and decided to reject the leave application and consequently the appeal. 5. Let us first refer to the decision of S.Ramalingam, J. That was a case where the petitioner therein filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Tiruchirapalli for a declaration that he was the hereditary Trustee of several temples and his application was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the second respondent in the writ petition before the learned Judge for himself and on behalf of the villagers of Agaram filed an appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.. Notice was ordered to the petitioner therein and another, and they were heard. In the appeal, certain documents were filed by the second respondent in the writ petition to show that the villagers had entered into the temples and taken part in the affairs and administration of the temples as trustees. Those documents were marked before the Commissioner as documents and the Commissioner remitted the matter to the file of the Deputy Commissioner and directed the Deputy Commissioner to restore the matter to his file with the direction to consider those documents filed in the appeal and dispose of the matter afresh. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the writ petitioner therein filed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the writ petitioner therein filed the writ petition. It was contended before the learned Judge that the second and the third respondents in the writ petition had no locus standi to file an appeal before the Commissioner because they were not in possession of the temple properties, that in any event those two persons ought to have filed an application for leave to file an appeal before the learned Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and having failed to file such an application, they could not prosecute the appeal. It was held by the learned Judge that it was open to the Commissioner to permit a person who was interested in the welfare and administration of a religious institution to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and such a person even without filing leave to file application could maintain an appeal. 6. Thefirst respondent Commissioner herein has sought to distinguish the decision of the learned Judge and in my view the distinction pointed out by the Commissioner between the case decided by S.Ramalingam, J. and the present case, is really not there. The learned Commissioner has reasoned that was a case with regard to Sec.63 (b) of the Act and the Rules relevant for the enquiry. In that case, there was no provision for giving public notice of the application preferred by the petitioners and inviting objection thereto and therefore the persons interested had no opportunity of even knowing that such an application had been filed and therefore the order passed by the High Court would be applicable only to such cases and not to the present case where the appeal had arisen out of the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.64(1) of the Act. 7. In my view, the Commissioner is not correct in holding that the decision of S.Ramalingam, J. would not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In my view, the Commissioner is not correct in holding that the decision of S.Ramalingam, J. would not apply to the facts of the present case. Sec.69(1) which is to the following effect: “Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under any of the foregoing sections of this Chapter may, within sixty days from the date of the publication of the order or of the receipt thereof by him, as the case may be, appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.” Talks about all the preceding sections of the Chapter and both Secs.63 and 64 come under Chapter V and the appeal provision is very clear that any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under any of the foregoing sections of the Chapter could file an appeal. In fact, the very application for leave in my view was wholly unnecessary in view of the over riding effect of the appeal provision under Sec.69 of the Act. The Commissioner was clearly in the wrong in refusing leave to file an appeal. There should have been an automatic direction to number the appeal, and the appeal should have been decided on merits. The observation by the Commissioner that all the formalities had been complied with is only by the way. If really the Commissioner was going to hear the appeal on merits, then again the writ petitioners ought to have been apprised that she was going to hear the appeal on merits and the petitioners could make good their contentions challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Commissioner had gone beyond the scope of what she was called upon to decide that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was in the nature of the judgment IN REM. The very grievance of the petitioners was that the formalities had not been observed. It was very well open to the learned Commissioner to have confronted the petitioners with the relevant files to demonstrate that their contention that all the formalities had not been complied with and they had no notice of the proceedings, were erroneous. 8. In viewof what is stated above, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Commissioner rejecting the leave application. 8. In viewof what is stated above, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Commissioner rejecting the leave application. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Chennai, who will restore the matter, direct numbering of the appeal and decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the parties to make good their cases. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.10635 of 1993 is closed.