Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that his father, late V.Jaganathan, had been appointed as a hereditary trustee of the Vaiganallur Kanniammar Koil, which is an unlisted temple, under the control of the Deputy Commissioner, Pudukottai Division. The said appointment had been made by the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Trichy, vide his Lr.No.O.A.No.71/80, dated 3. 1981. Thereafter, he was effectively performing his duties till his death, on 210. 2000. As the legal heir of the hereditary trustee, late V.Jaganathan, the petitioner has been performing the rituals and poojas, regularly. While so, it was alleged that two mango trees, which had grown near the temple, said to be more than 100 years old, had been cut by the petitioner, without the prior permission of the authorities concerned. In fact, the petitioner had cut the trees as they were hollow and weak and since they could cause damage to life and property, if they have fallen. The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments had issued a notice suspending the petitioner from the hereditary trusteeship post alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated the property belonging to the temple. The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments had also appointed an Executive Officer, the second respondent herein, as a fit person, vide his Lr.No.Na.Ka.No.18145/02 Aal, dated 12. 2002. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the act of the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments is contrary to the principles of natural justice, as no reasonable opportunity had been given to the petitioner before the second respondent had been appointed as a fit person in the temple. Further, the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments had framed false charges against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder. Further, the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments had framed false charges against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in accordance with the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder. Since the petitioner had misappropriated the property belonging to the temple, the first respondent had passed the impugned order appointing the second respondent as a fit person. 6. However, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, within a specified period, as ordered by this Court. 7. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have no objection for this Court passing such an order. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to conduct the enquiry, with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.