Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Second Respondent dated 23.08.2000 and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to group the Temples which are not already covered by appointment of Executive Officer, as stated therein.) The Petitioner Sangam, which is an Association representing the employees of the Temples in Vellore and Thiruvannamalai Districts seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Second Respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.70037/2000/3/L-1 dated 23.08.2000 and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to group the Temples, which are not already covered by appointment of Executive Officer and to appoint Executive Officer for those group as per the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.398 Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 03.09.1998. 2. The Petitioner Sangam is stated to be a registered Sangam bearing Registration No.1796/88 and the Sangam was formed by the employees working as Clerk, Accountant and Watchman etc., in the Temples governed by Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Board. As per the gradation, Temples are maintained by the Executive Officers Grade I, Grade II, Grade III and Grade IV. So far, about 1700 temples throughout Tamil Nadu have been covered under the above scheme and the Executive Officers are appointed. Since some of the Temples are manned and administered by other hereditary trustee or Fit Person, for better administration of the Temples, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.398 Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 03.09.1998 sanctioned 200 posts of Executive Officers, 100 posts each in Grade III and Grade IV. 3. Case of the Petitioner Sangam is that under the guise of implementing the Government Order, the Second Respondent issued proceedings dated 23.08.2000 allotting number of posts in Grade III and Grade IV Executive Officers. For Vellore District, four posts of Grade III and three posts of Grade IV Executive Officers were allotted; for Thiruvannamalai District, three posts of Grade III and three posts of Grade IV Executive Officers were allotted. While so allotting the Executive Officers, they have been allotted only to the Temples which are already administered by the Executive Officer. For Vellore District, four posts of Grade III and three posts of Grade IV Executive Officers were allotted; for Thiruvannamalai District, three posts of Grade III and three posts of Grade IV Executive Officers were allotted. While so allotting the Executive Officers, they have been allotted only to the Temples which are already administered by the Executive Officer. According to the Petitioner Sangam, the Second Respondent issued orders classifying the existing group of Temples which are already administered by the Executive Officer. The Impugned Government Order is challenged on the ground that there was no justification in allotting the Executive Officer in respect of the same temples which are already manned by the Executive Officer. 4. The Respondents have filed the Counter Affidavit contending that if the Petitioner Sangam was aggrieved, they ought to have moved the Government under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as "H.R & C.E.,Act") and the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of the alternative remedy. In the Counter Affidavit, it is further averred that the Temples were re-grouped for better administration and the Executive Officers were allotted, so that the distance from the Temple to the Headquarters of the Executive Officer could be limited and at the same time ensuring proper administration of the Temple. The right of the Petitioners are no way infringed and the Petition is vexatious and the Petitioner Sangam has no right to question the orders of the Commissioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the posts are extended only to those temples which are already covered by the Executive Officer. It was further submitted that bifurcating of the temples and allotting Executive Officer to those re-grouped Temples is not permissible under the Government Order and the Order of the Second Respondent dated 23.08.2000 is mala fide and the same is to be quashed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that since the Impugned Order is mala fide, the Writ Petition is maintainable though alternative remedy is available under Section 114 of the H.R & C.E Act. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that since the Impugned Order is mala fide, the Writ Petition is maintainable though alternative remedy is available under Section 114 of the H.R & C.E Act. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents - H.R. & C.E Department has submitted that under Section 114 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, if the Petitioners were aggrieved, they ought to have moved only the Government and the Writ Petition is filed only to slip over the statutory remedy available. It was further submitted that each Temple will not be in a position to pay the salary to the Executive Officer and for better administration of the Temples, the Temples were re-grouped, so that one Executive Officer can maintain those Temples. Learned Government Advocate has also submitted that the main purpose is only to tune up the administration and the Petitioners are no way affected by the orders of the Commissioner. 7. The Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department has submitted the proposal in Rc.No.2379/98 L1 dated 12.01.1998 for sanction of 200 posts of Executive Officers for Grade III and Grade IV (each 100) for the purpose of toning up the management of the temples, which are now managed by hereditary trustees, non-hereditary trustees and Fit Persons. The Government has accepted the proposal and sanctioned 200 posts of Executive Officers for Grade III and Grade IV (each 100) in G.O.Ms.No.398 Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 03.09.1998. The sanction of the posts was extended for another period of one year in G.O.Ms.No.271 Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 21.08.2000. 8. Steps had been taken to implement the above said Government Order. In Proceedings No.70037/2000/3 L-1 dated 23.08.2000, the Second Respondent has allotted the Executive Officer by grouping the Temples. As far as Vellore and Thiruvannamalai Districts are concerned, four posts of Grade III and three posts of Grade IV of Executive Officers were allotted to Vellore District; three posts of Grade III and three posts of Grade IV Executive Officers were allotted to Thiruvannamalai District. The temples have been grouped and the posts have been distributed as found in the Enclosure under the caption "g[jpa bjhFg;g[fs; Vw;gLj;Jjy;". 9. Aggrieved over the grouping of the Temples and appointment of Executive Officer which are already administered by the Executive Officer, the Petitioner Sangam challenges the order of the Second Respondent. The temples have been grouped and the posts have been distributed as found in the Enclosure under the caption "g[jpa bjhFg;g[fs; Vw;gLj;Jjy;". 9. Aggrieved over the grouping of the Temples and appointment of Executive Officer which are already administered by the Executive Officer, the Petitioner Sangam challenges the order of the Second Respondent. Under Section 114 of the H.R. & C.E., Act, the Government may call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner in respect of any proceedings ..... to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, illegality or propriety of any decision or order passed thereon. The Government is empowered to modify, annul, reverse or remit for re-consideration. If the Petitioners were aggrieved, they ought to have moved the Government under Section 114 of the Act. Without doing so, the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 10. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents H.R & C.E. Department has submitted that in view of the availability of the alternative remedy available under the Act, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Second Respondent's Impugned Order is mala fide and the availability of the alternative remedy is not a bar for filing the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that once the writ petition is admitted, the same cannot be dismissed on the final hearing of the case on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 2001 (2) T.L.N.J 149. 11. In view of the contentions urged, inspite of availability of alternative statutory remedy, the Court has considered whether the Impugned Order is malafide and whether the Petitioners' right is in any way affected. It is also to be considered whether inspite of availability of the alternative remedy for vindication of public cause, recourse must have to be made to the writ jurisdiction. 12. So far as to 200 posts of Executive Officers were sanctioned, they have been absorbed in the cadre strength of Executive Officers. Appointment of Executive Officers to individual temples is secondary and the matter has to be analysed separately in respect of each individual institution. As noted earlier, the Second Respondent had taken steps for appointment of 200 Executive Officers. So far as to 200 posts of Executive Officers were sanctioned, they have been absorbed in the cadre strength of Executive Officers. Appointment of Executive Officers to individual temples is secondary and the matter has to be analysed separately in respect of each individual institution. As noted earlier, the Second Respondent had taken steps for appointment of 200 Executive Officers. The sanction of 200 posts of Executive Officers was not intended to appoint them unilaterally to temples not having Executive Officers. For better administration of the Temples, to facilitate easy grouping of the Temples in consideration of each individual institution, the Second Respondent had re-grouped the Temples and allotted Executive Officers. 13. Under Section 45 of the H.R. & C.E., Act, the power has got to be exercised in terms of the Policy of the Act i.e., to provide for administration and governance of the religious and charitable institutions and endowments under the Act. So far as the District of Vellore is concerned, some of the Temples have been re-grouped from Arulmighu Narayana Reddiyar Chathiram Kuzhu, Thottapalayam, Vellore Town and Taluk and some other Temples from Long Bazar Arulmighu Vembuliamman Kovil Kuzhu. Likewise, for the District of Thiruvannamalai also, the Temples had been re-grouped and the Executive Officers were allotted to those re-grouped Temples for the purpose of efficient administration by the Executive Officer, so that the distance from the Temple from the Headquarters of the Executive Officer can be limited. 14. New Executive Officers could be appointed under Section 45 of the H.R. & C.E. Act individually to every Temple. In the Impugned Order, when the Commissioner had specifically stated the reasons for re-grouping the Temples and when the power had been exercised for the better and proper administration of the Group of the Temples, it cannot be said that there is malafide exercise of power. 15. Use of power for a purpose other than one of which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. The Commissioner had exercised the power under Section 45 of the H.R. & C.E.Act, providing for administration and governance of the Temples. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the Petitioners that the order is vitiated by mala fide does not merit acceptance. The Commissioner had exercised the power under Section 45 of the H.R. & C.E.Act, providing for administration and governance of the Temples. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the Petitioners that the order is vitiated by mala fide does not merit acceptance. The proceedings of the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., in Na.Ka.No.70037/2000/3L-1 dated 23.08.2000 covers the allotment of entire 200 posts of Executive Officers sanctioned for the entire state. The Petitioners are stated to be the employees of the Temples governed by the H.R. & C.E. Board in the Districts of Vellore and Thiruvannamalai. It is to be noted that the Petitioner Association has not produced any Registration Certificate. The Petitioner Association representing only two Districts cannot seek to quash the order of the Second Respondent, which relates to the 200 posts of Executive Officers covering the entire State.. 16. It is also to be noted that the Petitioners are in the cadre of Typists, Clerks or Watchmen. It is not known as to how they are affected by the grouping of the Temples and allotment of Executive Officers. It is the prerogative of the Second Respondent to exercise the powers for better administration and governance of the Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments under the State. The contentions of the Petitioner that they are interested in the better administration of the Temples and that they are affected by the order of the Commissioner does not impress the Court. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.