Judgment :- N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. The Prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order of suspension dated 04.03.2010, suspending the petitioner from the post of Hereditary Trustee of the temple under Section 53(4) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said suspension order is passed, based on four charges including the misuse of temple lands and execution of lease deeds contrary to the Government Orders and alleged violation of Section 53(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the order of suspension, the petitioner was not put on notice and opportunity of hearing was not given to him. 2. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that for passing an order of interim suspension, no notice or hearing is contemplated. Sections 53(3) and 53(4) of the Act read as follows: “ Section 53(3): When it is proposed to take action under sub-section (2), the Appropriate Authority shall frame charges against the trustee concerned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charges, of testing the evidence adduced against him and of adducing evidence in his favour; and the order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the charges framed against the trustee, his explanation and the finding on each charge with reasons therefore. Section 53(4): Pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Appropriate Authority may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the function of the trustee.” 3. From a perusal of Section 53(4) of the Act, it is evident that pending disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Appropriate Authority may himself could suspend and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the Trust. From a perusal of Section 53(4) of the Act, it is evident that pending disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the Appropriate Authority may himself could suspend and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the Trust. Though under Section 53(4) of the Act, the Appropriate Authority is given power to frame charges under Section 53(3) of the Act against the trustee and give him an opportunity of meeting such charges of testing the evidence adduced against him and of adducing evidence in his favour, the suspension order having been passed in his case as an interim measure, pending enquiry into the charges by invoking power under Section 53(4) of the Act, I am of the view that before placing the petitioner under interim suspension, no notice is contemplated in the said provision. Only if a final order is passed suspending the petitioner as a punishment, notice as contemplated under Section 53(3) of the Act has to be issued and opportunity should be given. In this case, the interim suspension order having been passed, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the order of suspension, he can very well file Appeal under Section 54(5) of the Act before the Competent Authority. 4. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that twelve weeks time may be granted to pass final order with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The said statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader is recorded and time is granted till the end of June, 2010, to pass final orders.