Judgment :- Under this revision, the revision petitioner challenges the order passed in CMA.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, who has upheld the order of the first respondent/Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Board, Coimbatore, who had appointed two nonhereditary trustees under Section 47(2) of the HR & CE Act, in addition to the revision petitioner, who is the hereditary trustee. 2. According to the learned counsel Mr.R.Karthikeyan appearing for the revision petitioner, the Joint Commissioner on the basis of a complaint received had passed an order under Section 47(2) of the HR & CE Act without looking into the explanation offered by the revision petitioner for the complaint alleged against him. According to the learned counsel, even in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner under his proceedings Nada Na.Ka.No.2047/2007/a3, dated 14. 2007, only on the basis of the letters produced at the time of enquiry, it was brought to the notice that Hereditary Trustees of the Temple have failed to discharge their duties to the satisfaction and they failed to provide necessary facilities to the devotees. Under such circumstances, P.K.Ramasamy and Tmt.V.Valliyathal have been appointed as additional trustees to administer the temple under Section 47(2) of HR & CE Act for one year. The learned counsel would represent that the two newly appointed trustees have not taken charge till today. The revision petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Board had preferred CMA.No.8 of 2007 before the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, who had confirmed the orders of the Joint Commissioner. According tot he learned counsel, the learned Appellate Authority in his order has observed that there was an enquiry conducted by the Inspector of the HR & CE Board on the complaint made against the revision petitioner and had submitted his report dated 23. 2007 to the Joint Commissioner recommending the initiation of proceedings against the president of the Hereditary Trustees and also recommended for the appointment of additional trustees. But even a copy of the report of the Inspector of HR & CE Board was not furnished to the revision petitioner to enable him to offer his explanation. Even in the show cause notice there is absolutely no reference with regard to the enquiry conducted by the Inspector of HR & CE Board and also about his report dated 23. Even in the show cause notice there is absolutely no reference with regard to the enquiry conducted by the Inspector of HR & CE Board and also about his report dated 23. 2007, which, according to the learned counsel, is against the principle of natural justice and requires interference from this Court. 3. A perusal of the show cause notice except mentioning of the complaint received from P.K.Veluswamy against the revision petitioner there is no mentioning about the enquiry conducted by the Inspector of HR & CE Board on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.K.Veluswamy and also about his report. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner after furnishing the copy of the report of the Inspector of HR & CE Board dated 23. 2007 and after considering his explanation, a fresh order is to be passed under the relevant provision of law by the Joint Commissioner. 4. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Dharapuram, in CMA.No.8 of 2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Board, Coimbatore, for passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner to submit his explanation to the report of the Inspector of HR & CE Board, dated 23. 2007. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.