Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of appointment of a Fit person issued under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Sangam is registered Sangam under the Societies Registration Act in the year 2004 in the name of "Sri Devi Ellamman Paripalana Sangam". The said Sangam has been administrating the affairs of Sri Devi Ellamman Thirukoil, Vannanthurai, Adyar, Chennai exclusively by vannan community (Dhobit Community) with the aid of their community members also and the said temple is an ancient one and the construction was made 100 years ago. It is further case of the petitioner-Sangam that it is formed to regulate the administrative affairs of Sri Devi Ellamman Thirukoil. 3. The formation of the Sangam was duly intimated to the first respondent department along with the list of Office Bearers selected by the members of the petitioner-Sangam. In the year 2008, the third respondent was nominated as the Trustee of the temple by the petitioner-Sangam and he was holding the post till 27.09.2009. Subsequently, he was removed and one E.Ramachandran has been selected and he continues as a Trustee. The removal of third respondent from the office is on certain allegations for having acted against the interest and development of the Temple. As the third Respondent continued to interefere with the administration after removal, the petitioner-Sangam filed a suit O.S.No.13446 of 2009 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court and an order of interim injunction has also been obtained. 4. In the meanwhile the third respondent made a complainant to the first respondent and considering the said complainant the impugned order was passed appointing the second respondent as fit person to the petitioner-Temple. The said appointment order is under challenge before this Court. 5. Mr.R.Shanmugam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Sangam is administrating the affairs of the Temple by appointing Trustees. The third respondent was removed on certain allegations and a new person has been appointed. The removal of the third respondent was already intimated to the first respondent Department through a letter dated 05.12.2009. 5. Mr.R.Shanmugam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Sangam is administrating the affairs of the Temple by appointing Trustees. The third respondent was removed on certain allegations and a new person has been appointed. The removal of the third respondent was already intimated to the first respondent Department through a letter dated 05.12.2009. When the third respondent was removed by the petitioner-Sangam, the first respondent, based on the complaint of removed Trustee, without serving notice and conducting enquiry under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, passed the impugned order. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned order is bad for violation of principles of natural justice. When a Trustee was appointed by the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, the Department ought to have given notice to the sangam before any action is being taken under the Act. He relied on a Judgment of a Division Bench this Court in N.Sivasubramanian Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu represented by its secretary and five others reported in 2007 (1) LW-72 In that case an Executive Officer was appointed to a Temple and that was made under Section 45 of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The said appointment was challenged before this Court. This Court considering the scope of Section 45 held that even though power is given to the authority under the said Section of the Act, the said power has to be exercised by following due process of law. 7. Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the authority has got power under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to appoint a fit person in respect of non listed Temple. He further submitted that on a complaint, an enquiry was conducted and based on that the impugned order was passed. 8. Mr.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the petitioner-Sangam has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order and it has got no locus standi to receive notice also. He further submitted if at all aggrieved, it is only the Trustees and not the petitioner Sangam by the impugned order. Secondly he submitted that he was the functioning Trustee appointed by the Committee and he handed over the charges to the fit person appointed by the Department. He further submitted if at all aggrieved, it is only the Trustees and not the petitioner Sangam by the impugned order. Secondly he submitted that he was the functioning Trustee appointed by the Committee and he handed over the charges to the fit person appointed by the Department. Moreover he has submitted there is no declaration obtained from the competent Civil Court. He relied upon the Judgment (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 497 Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), Madras and another Vs. Vedantha Sthapna Sabha, wherein in paragraphs 10 and 14 of the Judgments it has been stated as follows: 10. Clause (11) of Section 6 of the Act defining "hereditary trustee" has three limbs. Sections 41 and 42 of the Societies Act have great relevance on the question of hereditary trusteeship. Bye-law (23) also throws considerable light on the controversy. There is no question of any usage being pressed into service, when the temple is constructed first. The society itself was formed in 1967 and, therefore, the question of any long usage being in existence does not arise. 14. A bare reading of the definition of "hereditary trustee" brings into focus three important aspects i.e. first, a trustee of a religious institution the succession to which is devolved by hereditary right; the second category is that succession can be regulated by usage and the third category is where succession relating to the office of trustee is specifically provided for by the founder and that too so long as the scheme of such succession is in force. In contrast to the criteria engrafted in Section 6(22), the definition in Section 6(11) lays special and specific emphasis on the succession to the office of trustee of a religious institution devolving by any one of the three methods or manner envisaged therein. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the statutory authorities specially constituted under the Act have held the temple to be for all the worshipping Hindu public and not confined to the members of the Sabha only having regard to the manner in which funds were collected and the manner in which the public invitations and declarations have been made and day-to-day administration of the temple is being carried on from inception. Though there has been an application for declaration of the office of trustee of the religious institution to be a hereditary one, no application under Section 63(a) for a declaration as to whether the temple in question is a religious institution used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or section thereof was filed. Even after specific findings by the statutory authorities as to the character of the institution conspicuous omission in this regard disentitled the respondent Sabha to incidentally or vaguely project that it is for the members of the Sabha only. Once it is a religious institution within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of the Act have full force and effect and the claim of the nature, unless substantiated as provided for under the statue cannot be countenanced on certain assertions made which were besides such statutory provisions. This Court highlighted this aspect of the matter in the decision reported in D.Srinivasan V. Commr. 9. He further submits that the authority under the Act is entitled to excise the power and appoint a fit person especially when there are allegations made against the Trustee with regard to the functioning of the Temple. 10. He submitted that there is no right vested upon the Trustees and he has been only appointment by the Sangam to administrate the affairs of the Temple. The learned counsel submitted that being a Society, the petitioner-Sangam cannot have any role to play in the administration of the Temple Sangam and maintain the Writ Petitioner. 11. A perusal of the impugned order would show that a fit person was appointed under Section 49(1) of the Act which reads as follows. The learned counsel submitted that being a Society, the petitioner-Sangam cannot have any role to play in the administration of the Temple Sangam and maintain the Writ Petitioner. 11. A perusal of the impugned order would show that a fit person was appointed under Section 49(1) of the Act which reads as follows. Power of (Assistant Commissioner) to appoint trustees and fit persons :- (1) In the case of any religious institution which is not included in the list published under Section 46 and is not a religious institution notified or deemed to have been notified under Chapter VI of this Act, the (Assistant Commissioner) shall have the same power to appoint trustees including fit persons or constitute a Board of Trustees and is vested in (the Government, the Commissioner or the Joint/Deputy Commissioner) in the case of a religious institution referred to in clause(a) of sub-section(1) or in sub section (2), as the case may be, of section 47: Provided that the Board of Trustees constituted under this sub-section shall consist of three persons appointed by the Assistant Commissioner from among the panel of names of persons sent by the District Committee concerned under sub-section (4) of section 7-A: Provided further that in addition to the trustees appointed by the Assistant Commissioner under this sub-section, the Government may nominate two persons who are qualified for appointment as trustees under this Act as members of the said Board of Trustees, having regard to the following matters, namely :- (a) the interest of the public generally; (b) the income and the properties of the religious institution; (c) the number of worshippers and importance of the religious institution as a pilgrim centre: and (d) such other matters as may be prescribed; Provided also that notwithstanding anything aforesaid in this sub-section, the Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of any such religious institution which has no hereditary trustee, appoint a single trustee. 12. Under Section 49 any Religious Institution which is not a listed one, the Assistant Commissioner has power to appoint Trustee including fit persons. The said Section would show that the power of the Assistant Commissioner has got power to appoint Trustees and fit person. However, what is to be seen is while exercising the power under Section 49, whether the authority has followed due process of law in this case. The said Section would show that the power of the Assistant Commissioner has got power to appoint Trustees and fit person. However, what is to be seen is while exercising the power under Section 49, whether the authority has followed due process of law in this case. The impugned order does not show as to wheather any complaint was lodged by the third respondent any notice was given to the petitioner any enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted. Moreover, the petitioner Sangam is administering the Temple and copy of the order was also marked to the petitioner-Sangam which states as follows: TAMIL 13. In fact, Mr.T.Chandrasekar learned counsel for the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act submitted that there is no provision under Section 49(1) to issue notice before any order is passed. When a person is admittedly administering the Temple and a copy of the impugned order has been marked to the petitioner Temple the department cannot say that no notice is required to be given to the petitioner. Moreover the impugned order has taken away the right of the petitioner-Sangam, to administer the Temple in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled position of law that before passing any order, affecting the rights of the parties, principles of natural of justice should be followed and the affected person is required to be given notice. 14. Section 49 is almost similar to Section 45 with regard to the appointment of the Executive Officer. A Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary and five others reported in 2007 (1) L.W.72, while considering the appointment of Executive Officer under Section 45(1) of the Act, considered the effect of the Section 45. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Division Bench judgment, are extracted as follows: 13. Here in this case, based on the complaint/representation given by the 6th respondent, the impugned order is passed at the instance of the 6th respondent, appointing 5th respondent as Executive Officer, but without issuing notice to the petitioner or other trustees. A perusal of the impugned order amply establishes the fact that the second respondent has not issued any notice to any of the trustees including the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order amply establishes the fact that the second respondent has not issued any notice to any of the trustees including the petitioner. The administration of the temples, particularly the denominational temples, by the trustee is a valuable right and the same cannot be lightly divested under the guise of exercising power under section 45(1) of the HR & CE Act. The impugned order having civil consequences against the petitioner and other trustees, the second respondent is bound to give notice to the petitioner and other trustees and only after hearing their objections, if any, the Executive Officer can be appointed, if the explanation submitted by the trustees are not satisfied. 14. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1991 SC 1117 (S.C. And Weaker Section Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Karnataka), in paragraph 15 held as under, " It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. If there is power to decide and determined to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for that purpose. It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding that the audi alteram partem rule could be imported... " It has been held in the said Division Bench Judgment that section 45 of the Act, even though empowers the second respondent to pass an order appointing an Executive Officer, that power has to be excised in terms of the policy of the Act and finally its was held that failure on the part of the Department in issuing notice to the petitioner therein as well as to other Trustees vitiated the impugned order. 15. 15. Section 45 is similar to Section 49 of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The facts in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore there is no hesitation for this Court to hold that in violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order has been passed. 16. The first Respondent Department itself admitted that receiving of communication from petitioner Sangam about the removal of the third respondent on 23.12.2009. The third respondent subsequently gave a complaint on 16.09.2009 to the Department and the same was acted upon. When a complaint was made against the petitioner Sangam or a Trustee, as a statutory authority, the first respondent is required to conduct enquiry after affording opportunity to the affected party to putforth their version. Very strangely in the case on hand, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner-Sangam and even the alleged enquiry report is not placed before this Court. The aforesaid facts would make this Court to come to the conclusion that no enquiry was conducted by the first respondent before passing the impugned order. Hence the impugned order is vitiated. 17. With regard to the question of locus standi, it is seen that the petitioner-Sangam has been managing the affairs of the Temple and a copy of the impugned order was addressed to the petitioner-Sangam and the same is under challenge before this Court by Sangam only and not by third respondent. Further the petitioner-Sangam has already reported to the first respondent about the removal of the third respondent and appointment of another Trustee. Therefore the contention Mr.Sriram the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order and also right to get notice is hereby rejected. 18. In fine, this Court holds that (i) The petitioner has been managing the affairs of the Temple (ii) The petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity before passing the impugned order. (iii) No notice was given before passing the impugned order and therefore it is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) The petitioner has got every locus standi to challenge the order as it has right to the administer the Temple. 19. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is setaside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.