Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3840 of 1999 has challenged the circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in Na. Ka. No. 95206/98/R2 dated 27.1.99. 2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11573 and 11617 of 1999 have also challenged the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in Na.ka. No. 8516/92/R2 dated 24.3.92 as amended by the circular in Na.Ka. No. 95206/98/R2 dated 27.1.99. 3. By consent of parties, all the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. The brief facts leading to the filing of all the writ petitions may be stated as follows. 4. All the petitioners applied for allotment of houses belonging to the 2nd respondent namely Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore on rental basis. Since the requests of the petitioners were not conceded in view of the circular of the 1st respondent dated 27.1.99, the present writ petitions have been filed challenging the said circular. It is the case of the petitioners that on 24.3.92, the 1st respondent issued circular containing guidelines for the purpose of leasing out the houses noted and belonging to the 2nd respondent Temple by way of lease. Among other conditions the 1st respondent directed that 1/3rd available houses shall be allotted to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department, 1/3rd of houses shall be allotted to the employees of the Temple and the remaining 1/3rd of the houses shall be allotted to public. On 27.1.99 the 1st respondent issued another circular modifying the conditions for leasing out the houses belonging to the Temple by directing that 50% of the houses shall be allotted to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the remaining 50% shall be allotted to the employees of the Temple. He also directed that in the event any house is left unallotted from among the employees of the Temple and the H.R. & C.E. Department, those houses can be allotted to the public. By the said cricular the 1st respondent also directed the other conditions to be incorporated for the terms of lease. He also directed that in the event any house is left unallotted from among the employees of the Temple and the H.R. & C.E. Department, those houses can be allotted to the public. By the said cricular the 1st respondent also directed the other conditions to be incorporated for the terms of lease. The grievance of the petitioners is that the condition specifying that the employees of H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple are alone entitled for such allotment is arbitrary, violative of principles of equality, violative of the provisions of H.R. & C.E. and would result in loss of revenue to the Temple. The request of the petitioners for allotment of houses has not been considered in view of the impugned circulars and therefore the petitioners were constrained to challenge the circulars themselves. 5. Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitione in W.P. Nos. 3840 of 1999 and Mr. K. Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11573 and 11617 of 1999 contended that by virtue of Section 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 hereinafter called as “the Act”, the Government may, by notification, make Rules to carry out the purpose of this Act and without prejudice to the generality of the above power, the Government may also provide for Rules in relation to the manner in which and the period for which leases of properties of religious institutions shall be made. By virtue of such power, the Government have framed “ The Religious Instutions Lease of Immovable Property Rules 1963 ” and notified in G.O.Ms. No. 3060 Revenue dated 17.10.63 hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”. As per Rule 2 of the said Rules, lease of immovable property and rights belonging to a religious institution shall be made by public auction. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that when there is a specific Rule framed for the purpose of leasing of the property belonging to the Temple only by public action, the impugned circulars giving powers to the respective Executive Officers to allot the houses a nd that too only to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple is without jurisdiction. In any event the learned counsel submitted that reservation of the allotment of houses only to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further coutend that in any event by allotting the entire houses only to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple, and fixing the rent on the basis of the salary without resorting to public auction would result in loss of revenue to the Temple. Hence, the impugned circulars are not in the interest of the temple itself and therefor are liable to be set saide. 6. Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in all the writ petitions would submit that there are 225 buildings belonging to the 2nd respondent Temple out of which 185 buildings are now under occupation by the public. Most of the tenants are chronic defulters in payment of monthly rent. Sometimes, after accumulation of huge arrears of rent, the tenants vacate the property and leave the place without paying the arrears of rent. The Temple is put to great difficulty in collecting the rents from those tenants. As on today roughly about Rs. 13 lakhs are due to the Temple by way of arrears from tenants. The learned counsel would submit that therefore, in augmenting the revenue for the Temple and also in the interest of the Temple, the 1st respondent issued circular dated 24.3.92 with instructions containing the procedures to be followed for letting out house properties belonging to the Temple. In the said circular it was instructed that 1/3rd of the houses shall be allotted to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department, 1/3rd of the houses shall be allotted to the employees of the Temple and the remaining 1/3rd of the house shall be allotted to the public. Since the 1st respondent found it difficult even for following the said instructions in making the allotment to the public and collecting the rent from the public, a revised circular was issued on 27.1.99 wherein out of the total houses belonging to the Temple, 50% of the same shall be allotted to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the remaining 50% of the houses shall be allotted to the employees of the temple. The said circulars were issued by the 1st respondent by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Section 34 of the Act. The learned counsel would further contend that as per Rule 2 of the Rules, the lease of immovable property and right of religious institution shall be made by public action. However, as per Rule 11 of the Rules, the Joint Commissioner on an application made to him by the executive authorty of a religious institution permit the lease of any property or right otherwise than by public auction, if he is satisfied that the interests of the institution will not suffer by dispensing with the public auction. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that it cannot be contended that there is no power for the 1st respondent to issue such directions. 7. The learned counsel would also submit that only in view of the fact that the Temple was unable to collect the arrears of rent from its tenants when the houses were leased out to the public and as admittedly a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs is due to the temple from the tenants and if the houses are leased out to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple, the rent is recovered from their salary and the Temple will not be put to any loss. Only in order to secure and safeguard the revenue of the Temple, the classification of 50% has been made for allotment of the houses to the houses to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the remaining 50% to the employees of the Temple. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the classification cannot be contended as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that the leasing out of houses cannot be considered as commercial activity of the Temple as in the case of leasing out of shops belonging to the Temple. The learned counsel would also submit that by the impugned circulars, the public like the petitioners are not completely eliminated for the allotment of houses. On the other hand, in the very same circular the 1st respondent has instructed, if any houses remain vacant after allotment to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and employees of the Temple, the same can be allotted to public. On the other hand, in the very same circular the 1st respondent has instructed, if any houses remain vacant after allotment to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and employees of the Temple, the same can be allotted to public. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that all contentions raised by the respective learned counsel for the petitioners are liable to be rejected. 8. Mr. Patty B. Jagannathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would adopt the arguments of Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 9. I have heard the submissions of the respective counsel. The houses which are the subject matter in the writ petitions belong to the 2nd respondent Temple and these houses are charitable endowments as could be seen from the definition of religious endowment or endowment defined under. Section 6(17) of the Act which reads as follows: — “religious endowment” or “endowment” means all property belonging to or given endowed for the support of mutts or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity, and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but dose not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution.” By Regulation VII of 1817, the power of supervision of the temples was vested with the Board of Revenue. Thereafter, under reversal of policy of Government in 1839, the village temples were handed over to the pujaries and larger Temples were handed over to the leading mutts. Subsequently, by Act 20 of 1863 local Temple Committees were formed for supervision in the place of Board of Revenue. Thereafter, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (Act II of 1927) was enacted to provide for proper administration and governance of the Hindu religious endowments. The said Act provided for the supervision of the religious endowments through a statutory body known as the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. By an amendment Act 9 of 1937 a new chapter VI-A was introduced to provide that a temple or specific endowment attached to a Temple should be governed by a scheme either framed by the Board or settled by a Court. The Board was given power to appoint Executive Officers for notified Temple or endowment and defined his duties. By an amendment Act 9 of 1937 a new chapter VI-A was introduced to provide that a temple or specific endowment attached to a Temple should be governed by a scheme either framed by the Board or settled by a Court. The Board was given power to appoint Executive Officers for notified Temple or endowment and defined his duties. Thereafter, in the year 1951, the Board was abolished and the administration of religious and charitable endowments was vested in a Department of Government, the head of which is the Commissioner. The said Act also provided the application of powers to the officers subordinate to him. Under Section 9 of the Act, Commissioner is appointed by the Government. Under Section 23, the powers and duties of the Commissioner are provided and the said Section reads as under: — “Subject to the provisions of this Act, the administration of all temples (including specific endowments attached thereto) and all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner; and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such temples and endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist: Provided that the Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any temple or endowment unless the trustees concerned have had a reasonable opportunity of making their representations.)” The power to frame Rules also vests with the Government under Section 116. The relevant provisions of the said Section is extracted as under: — “116.(1) The Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for — (xiii) the manner in which and the period for which leases of properties of religious institutions shall be made.” 10. By virtue of the said power, the Government framed the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property Rules, 1963) and notified in Government Gazette in G.O. No. 3060 Revenue dated 17.10.63. The relevant Rules for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions are extracted as under: — “Rule 2: Lease by public auction: Lease of immovable property and rights belonging to a religious institution shall be made by public auction. The relevant Rules for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions are extracted as under: — “Rule 2: Lease by public auction: Lease of immovable property and rights belonging to a religious institution shall be made by public auction. The auction shall ordinarily be conducted in the place in which the property is situate or the rights exist. Rule 11: Leases otherwise by public auction: The Joint Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area may, on an application made to him by the executive authority of a religious institution permit the lease of any property or right otherwise than public auction, if he is satisfied that the interests of the institution will not suffer by dispensing with the public auction.” 11. On the basis of the above provisions, it is to be now considered as to whether the circulars issued by the 1st respondent can be considered as one issued with power conferred on him under Section 23 and whether these circulars are violative of the Rules framed by the Government under Section 116(2) (xiii) of the Rules. In so far as the power of the Commissioner to issue such circular in the interest of the institution, it is to be seen that the erstwhile power of the administration, supervision and control of the religious institutions and specifc endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu which were vested with the Board of Revenue have been vested now with the Commissioner by virtue of the introduction of Section 23 of the Act. As per the said Section, the administration of the Temple including the specific endowments attached thereto and all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner. The said provision also makes it clear that such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such temples and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist. Proviso to the said section imposes a restriction on the Commissioner in passing any orders prejudicial to any temple or endowment unless the trustees concerned have had a reasonable opportunity of making their representations. By the said proviso, it could be inferred that the Commissioner is otherwise shall have the power to pass any order in the interest of the temple and endowment. By the said proviso, it could be inferred that the Commissioner is otherwise shall have the power to pass any order in the interest of the temple and endowment. When the said section is read along with Rule 11 of the Rules wherein a power is conferred even on the Joint Commissioner to dispense with the public auction in leasing out any property or right of a religious institution if he is satisfied that the interest of the institutions will not suffer by dispensing with such public action, the Commissioner namely the 1st respondent can order dispensing with the public auction, of course, for the interest of the Temple. Arguments were advanced that as per Rule 2 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent could allot the houses only by auction and the public cannot be deprived of having allotment of the houses. It is to be noted that as per Rule 2 of the Rules, of course it is stated that lease of immovable property and rights belonging to religious institution shall be made by public auction. However, on a reading of Rule 11, the public auction could be also dispensed with if the respondents are satisfied that the interests of the institution will not suffer by dispensing with the public auction. Therefore, by virtue of the said provision, power is conferred on the respondents to dispense with public auction. Moreover, in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents which was referred to above for resorting to the procedure as instructed in the impugned order for leasing out the houses, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the houses should be leased out only through public auction. 12. The next question to be considered is as to whether the allotment of entire houses could be made only to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple. The reason for issuance of circulars and reserving 50% of the houses to the employees of H.R. & C.E. department and the remaining 50% of the houses to the employees of the Temple has been made only when the 2nd respondent experienced the difficulty in collecting the rent from the tenants when the houses are leased out to the public. The reason for issuance of circulars and reserving 50% of the houses to the employees of H.R. & C.E. department and the remaining 50% of the houses to the employees of the Temple has been made only when the 2nd respondent experienced the difficulty in collecting the rent from the tenants when the houses are leased out to the public. As could be seen from the counter affidavit, out of 225 houses belonging to the 2nd respondent, 185 houses are now under occupation by the public and a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs are due from these tenants as arrears of rent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that if the houses are allotted to the employees of H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple, the rents are fixed as per Rule 17 of the Rules enabling the 2nd respondent to fix the fair rent and the same can be recovered from the salary of the employees. The said submission would clearly indicate that the instructions for allotment of 50% of the houses to the employees of H.R. & C.E. Department and the remaining 50% of the houses to the employees of the Temple would be only in the interest of the Temple and in order to secure and safeguard the revenue of the Temple. It is also to be noted that the entire allotment of houses cannot be construed as reserved for only the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple by totally excluding the public. As per paragraph 4 of the said circular, it is made clear that in the event of any houses not leased out to the employees of the H.R; & C.E. Department and Temple, the same could be allotted to the public also. The earmarking of 50% of the houses to the employees of H.R. & C.E. Department and the remaining 50% of the houses to the employees of the Temple would at best be called as a rule of preference and cannot be called as reservation of the houses for the employees only. Such preference has been made only in the interest of the Temple as could be seen from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents as well as from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Such preference has been made only in the interest of the Temple as could be seen from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents as well as from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Hence, I reject the contention of the petitioners in this regard also and I do not find any discrimination or violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in earmarking percentages for allotment of houses to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple. 13. The next submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the impugned circular is given effect to, the Temple will be put to loss of revenue. Going by the details given by the respondents with regard to the difficulty experienced by the Temple authorities in collecting the rent from the tenants, if the houses are allotted to the employees of the Department and the Temple the rent can be recovered from the salary and the Temple can be benefitted instead of resorting to legal pr oceedings for recovery of rents from the defaulting tenants. In this context Rule 17 of the Rules enabling the authorities for fixing of fair rent to the buildings belonging to the religious institution can also be taken note of and the same reads as follows: — “17. Fixation of fair rent to buildings belonging to the religious institutions. Fair rent to the site and buildings belonging to the religious institutions shall be revised periodically at least once in three years by a Committee constituted for each Joint/Joint Commissioners division by the Commissioner. If there is an Executive Officer, appointed for the religious institution, he shall also be associated with the work of the Committee. If there is no Executive Officer appointed for the religious institution, the trustee or Chairman, Board of Trustees shall be associated with the work of the Committee. The fair rent shall be fixed in accordance with the market value of the land and the cost of the building worked out as per the code of the Public Works Department” 14. By virtue of the above provision, the rents fixed to the allottees of the houses can be reviewed and fixed at least once in three years. The fair rent shall be fixed in accordance with the market value of the land and the cost of the building worked out as per the code of the Public Works Department” 14. By virtue of the above provision, the rents fixed to the allottees of the houses can be reviewed and fixed at least once in three years. I am unable to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the event of retirement, termination or transfer there wont be any difficulty for the Temple to take possession of the vacant houses and to immediately lease out the same to the intending employee without there being any break in the income to the Temple by way of rent. When the houses are leased out to the tenants, in view of the difficulty experienced by the Temple even to recover the rent, and in some cases after accumulation of rent the tenents leave the houses without even payment of any arrears of rent and the Temple was put to great difficulty in recovering such arrears, the earmarking of the houses for being allotted to the employees of H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple would be justified. In view of the above findings, I also do not find any reason to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by allotting the houses only to the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the Temple, the temple is put to revenue loss. 15. Further, the scope of judicial review in the matters like this is very very limited. In the judgment reported in “ Tata Cellular v. Union of India ( 1994 (6) SCC 651 )” the scope of judicial review was considered very exhaustively and more particularly in the matter of contracts. 15. Further, the scope of judicial review in the matters like this is very very limited. In the judgment reported in “ Tata Cellular v. Union of India ( 1994 (6) SCC 651 )” the scope of judicial review was considered very exhaustively and more particularly in the matter of contracts. While approving the dictum of the Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in “ Sterling Computers Limited v. M & N Publications Limited ( 1993 (1) SCC 445 )” their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held thus: — “If the decisions have been taking in bona fide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, that courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of ‘play in the joints’ to the executive.” Their Lordship have also held that the Government must have freedom of contract. In other words a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.” 16. When applying the above dictum, the scope of the judicial review of this Court to interfere in the circulars which have been made by the authority who is competent to make such circular in the interest of the religious institution is very limited. The instructions contained in the circulars are only in the interest of the institution and in view of the fact that there is no total exclusion of the public from allotment of houses in the event of any such houses available for making such allotment, and in view of my finding that there is no discrimination in earmarking 50% of the houses for the employees of the H.R. & C.E. Department and the remaining 50% of the houses to the employees of the Temple, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners that if the impugned circulars are given effect to, the Temple will be put loss of revenue, and therefore the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 17. 17. However, I make it clear that the petitioners have admittedly applied for allotment of the houses to the 2nd respondent and as per the impugned circulars, if any, houses remain unallotted, the petitioners request shall be considered by the 2nd respondent and such houses could be allotted if the petitioners are otherwise eligible and entitled for such allotment subject to all the conditions of allotment as instructed in the impugned circulars. With the above observation, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.