Judgment :- 1. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner who claims to be one of the grand daughters of Late W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, the Founder-Trustee of Ambalavanar Araporrupu Ayam (for short, 'the Trust'), has sought for a direction to the third respondent, namely the District Educational Officer, Kanchipuram, to conduct an enquiry before granting approval to the extension of the term of office for the present office bearers of the Trust at Walajabad, Kanchipuram, for a further period of three years, i.e. from 2011 to 2014. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated as follows: (a) The petitioner is one of the grand daughters of Late W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, who founded the Trust called "Ambalavanar Araporuppu Ayam" at Walajabad, Kanchipuram in 1963 with the object of providing education to the local people who are socially and educationally backward. The Trust started various schools in and around the area, for the benefit of the people in Walajabad Village and surrounding areas, who are all depending on the Schools to give best education to their children. Many children also do part-time work at home for their livelihood and then attend the school. (b) Originally, the members of the Trust Board were (1) Thiru.T.Manikkam Chettiyar, (2) Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, (3) Thiru.W.D.Nataraja Mudaliyar, (4) Thiru.N.P.Thanigaiarasu, (5) Tmt. Rajeswari Vedhachalam Ammayar, (6) Thiru.W.T.Kannappa Mudaliyar and (7) Dr.Vaithiyanathan. All were continued as Trustees till their lifetime. In the Trust Deed, it is clearly stated that any vacancy that arises due to resignation or death should be filled up by majority of votes of the other Trustees in the Trust. It is also clearly stated that after the death of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, his family member must be included in the Trust Board as a Trustee. The Trust Deed also prescribes the qualification to become a member of the Trust. (c) The petitioner claims that she is one of the grand daughters of the said Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar and she has fulfilled all the required qualifications prescribed in the Trust Deed. The Trust Deed also prescribes the qualification to become a member of the Trust. (c) The petitioner claims that she is one of the grand daughters of the said Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar and she has fulfilled all the required qualifications prescribed in the Trust Deed. No one from the family of Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar was appointed or elected as a Trustee after his death and the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the earlier Trust Board on several occasions by her and her brother, but to her shock and surprise, no action has been taken by the earlier Trust Board and also the present Trust Board to include the family members of Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar as Trustee. (d) While so, the Director of School Education, in his proceedings dated 26.10.1977, inter-alia stated that it is not known that whether the family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar has been elected as a Trustee and when that is the position, the fourth respondent-Secretary of the Trust, and also the Secretary of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar Higher Secondary School, Walajabad, Kanchipuram (for short, 'the School'), suppressing the above fact that the family members of the said W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar were not included as a Trustee, sent the proposal to the District Educational Officer for approval of his appointment as Secretary. The third respondent-District Educational Officer, based on the proposal, granted the approval of his appointment as Secretary of the Trust Board, by proceedings, dated 6.2.2008 from 6.3.2008 to 5.3.2011. (e) In the present Trust Board, the family members of the above said Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, were not included as Trustees in the Trust Board. In the present Board, there are seven trustees and they are as follows: (1) Thiru.B.Kandasamy - President (2) Thiru.P.Radhakrishnan - Secretary (3) Thiru W.N.Thirunavukarasu - Assistant Secretary-cum-Treasurer (4) Thiru.S.Rajendran - Member (5) Thiru.Lakshmanan - Member (6) Thiru.S.L.N.S.Vijayakumar - Member (7) Thiru.Dr.M.S.Amarasan - Member The above members are not the family members of Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar. In the present Board, there are seven trustees and they are as follows: (1) Thiru.B.Kandasamy - President (2) Thiru.P.Radhakrishnan - Secretary (3) Thiru W.N.Thirunavukarasu - Assistant Secretary-cum-Treasurer (4) Thiru.S.Rajendran - Member (5) Thiru.Lakshmanan - Member (6) Thiru.S.L.N.S.Vijayakumar - Member (7) Thiru.Dr.M.S.Amarasan - Member The above members are not the family members of Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar. The petitioner being one of the grand daughters of Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar and one of the legal heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, and having fully qualified to be elected as a Trustee, made several representations to the present Secretary and also met the other Trustees in person requesting them to include the petitioner as a member of the Trust Board and instead of doing so, she came to know that they are taking hasty steps to get the approval for their term of office for a further period of three years from 2011-2014. (f) The fourth respondent-Secretary is continuing as Secretary for the past several years. It appears that he made several alienations of the Trust properties without any approval from the Court of law and also let out the Trust properties for a meagre rent to the relatives of the other Trustees. He is also acting against the rules and regulations of the Trust and also the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules) and also acting contrary to the Government Orders, circulars and other proceedings. Hence, so many cases were filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff and they are pending. (g) The above facts would establish beyond any doubt that the Secretary and Trustees are guilty of gross misfeasance of their position and power. They have also breached the very Clauses of the Trust Deed, framed by the said Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar and also the trust and faith reposed on them by the members of the Community. They are also taking steps to initiate appropriate legal action against them before the appropriate forum. (h) The non-inclusion of any member from the family of Late W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, who is the author of the Trust, is against his intention. In this regard, the petitioner made various representations to the respondents. They are also taking steps to initiate appropriate legal action against them before the appropriate forum. (h) The non-inclusion of any member from the family of Late W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, who is the author of the Trust, is against his intention. In this regard, the petitioner made various representations to the respondents. The present Board's term expires on 5.3.2011 and hence, the fourth respondent-Secretary is taking steps to send the proposal for approval of the present Board for a further period of three years from 2011 to 2014. Therefore, the petitioner made representation to the respondents on 10.1.2011, requesting them not to grant the approval to the present Board for a further period of 2011-2014. (i) The respondents 1 to 3, instead of directing the fourth respondent-Secretary to include the petitioner as one of the Trustees, are taking steps to grant the approval contrary to the intention of Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, to the present Board, and the same is totally illegal, arbitrary and mala-fide, for the reason that the respondents 1 to 3 have to direct the fourth respondent to include the petitioner's name as per the Trust Deed and without doing so, there cannot be approval of extending the term of office of the Trust Board and against the intention of the testator to include one of the family members in the Trust Board. (j) Therefore, having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Writ Petition for the above stated relief. 4. The fourth respondent-Secretary has filed counter affidavit along with the vacate-injunction petition, stating as follows: (i) The very writ petition is not maintainable in law and on facts. Assuming that the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the family member of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar on the Trust Board, she has to approach the Civil Court, as her grievance is a dispute having civil consequences and her grievance is that the terms of the Trust Board had been violated. Assuming that the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the family member of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar on the Trust Board, she has to approach the Civil Court, as her grievance is a dispute having civil consequences and her grievance is that the terms of the Trust Board had been violated. Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, the Founder-Trustee, established M/s.Ambalavanar Araporuppu Ayam (i.e. the Trust), Walajabad, Kanchipuram, during 1963, by way of a registered Trust Deed, dated 4.9.1963, registered as Document No.2545/63 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad, enumerating the manner in which the constitution of the Trust is to be made and the succession of the Trust which was registered as the Society on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad, Kanchipuram. (ii) As per the terms of the Deed of Trust, the following seven Trustees were the permanent Trustees at the time of creation of the Trust: (1) T.Manickam Chettiar, S/o Makappa Chettiar (2) W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, S/o Thyagaraja Mudaliar (3) W.D.Nataraja Mudaliyar, S/o W.C.Duraisamy Mudaliar (4) N.P.Thannigai Arasu, S/o Parasuram Mudaliar (5) Smt.Rajeswari Vedhachalam, W/o M.Rao Bahadur M.Vedachallam Mudaliar (6) W.T.Kannappa Mudaliyar, S/o S.Thirumalaisamy Mudaliar (7) Dr.R.N.Vaidyanathan, S/o R.V.Natesa Iyer The terms of the Trust Deed indicated that the above mentioned Trustees would continue for their lifetime and on their vacating the post of Trustee either on resignation or on their death, the remaining Trustees were expected to appoint new Trustees by consensus vote as put forth in the Trust Deed. It is further stated that the terms of the Trust Deed may be read as part and parcel of the counter affidavit for better appreciation of the rights, duties and obligation that were cast upon eligible Trustees to effectively administer the Trust, which was intended to achieve the objects with which the said Trust was established. (iii) The term of the office bearer, namely the President was determined to be for a period of three years and the terms of the Trust Deed itself provided the names of the individuals who were expected to function as the President. Though the term of the President was determined to be for a period of three years, as per the terms of the Trust Deed, the first President who was elected, namely T.Manickam Chettiyar, was expected to function as a President till his lifetime. Similarly, Sri.Nataraja Mudaliyar, the Treasurer was authorised till his lifetime to function. Though the term of the President was determined to be for a period of three years, as per the terms of the Trust Deed, the first President who was elected, namely T.Manickam Chettiyar, was expected to function as a President till his lifetime. Similarly, Sri.Nataraja Mudaliyar, the Treasurer was authorised till his lifetime to function. Thiru.Masilamani Mudaliyar functioned as Secretary of the Trust-cum-Correspondent of the Higher Secondary School. Thiru.N.P.Thannigai Arasu was elected as Joint Secretary till his lifetime. The intentions of the Founder-Trustee could be gathered from the stipulations of the Trust Deed, which indicated that the Trustees who were elected and appointed in the position of President, the Treasurer and Joint Secretary, were expected to function till their lifetime and in the event of them being unable to carry on their function, for reasons assigned, the remaining Board of Trustees would either on nomination or consensus, elect the new officer bearers who were expected to function for a fixed period of three years. (iv) The Founder expressed his wish that the successor members of his family should form a part of the administration of the Trust as Board of Trustees. The following is the family tree of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, comprising of his legal heirs who could have claimed for representation in the Trust Board under the terms of the Trust Deed: W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| Kumarasivam (son)(daughter) name not known | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | K.Thirunavukkarasu Sivanarul Gandhimathi Renuka Gomathi Kalavathi (grand son) (grand daughter) (grand daughter) (grand daughter) (grand daughter) (grand daughter) (writ petitioner) W/o Venkatesan | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | | V.Thiyagarajan Dharanikamatchi Sundari (son)(daughter) (daughter) (v) After the death of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar in 1967, Kumarasivam, the only son who had estranged from W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, even during the lifetime of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar, warranted Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar to make a public announcement that no claim whatsoever should be made by Kumarasivam and any act of encumbrance by the said Kumarasivam to his personal or Trust properties, would be binding. The behaviour of Kumarasivam resulted in mismanagement and waste of corpus of the Trust, as he had indulged himself in nefarious activities by creating false, fraudulent, fictitious, unlawful documents, by way of sale, which had no legal sanction even during the lifetime of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar and only as a precautionary measure, W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar was compelled to issue a paper notification to that effect. Such being the activity of the said Kumarasivam, on the death of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, he forced himself to the Trust activities, to which the other Trustees could not raise any objections. By way of his unwanted activities, he was implicated in a criminal case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to which he was convicted and was rendered disqualified and unfit to continue as a Secretary of the School Committee of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar Higher Secondary School, Walajabad, in the year 1973 and thereafter, he died in 1974. (vi) The non-indulgence of the other Trustees in the administration of the Trust and the school activities, the competent authorities, namely the respondents 1 to 3 herein, have initiated action to cause disbursement of salary by way of direct payment and finally by re-constitution of the Board of Trustees and the School Committee by way of proceedings of the first respondent, dated 27.2.1978, re-constitution of the School Committee was approved by the competent authority. For the period between 1978 and 2011, more specifically upto 5.3.2011, no member of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar was available after the death of Kumarasivam to even seek representation in the Trust Board. The Trust Deed contemplated a socially responsible person to be an eligible member to be nominated as a Trustee, when none of the Board of Trustees found the family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, eligible to be nominated, and the petitioner cannot today make an allegation of the same. As on date, the Board of Trustees comprises of members as admitted by the petitioner, who have been nominated as per the procedure contemplated in the Trust Deed. The School Committee of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School, has been reconstituted as per the terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder and has been validly renewed periodically. The School Committee of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School, has been reconstituted as per the terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder and has been validly renewed periodically. (vii) By making a false allegation that the fourth respondent is causing alienation of Trust properties, the petitioner has chosen to make out a cause of action and has preferred the present Writ Petition to secure her representation as a Board of Trustees inasmuch as the nomination of a member into a Board of Trustees, is not automatic and the terms of the Trust Deed is to be satisfied to enable the present Board of Trustees to nominate them as a Trustee and there can be no compulsion on the part of the Board of Trustees all of a sudden to nominate the family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, inasmuch as the terms of the Trust Deed have to be read and given effect to in its true scope and spirit and cannot be read in isolation particularly when the petitioner has acted in a manner reflecting their motivated and mala-fide interest against the welfare of the Trust properties. (viii) The act of waste of the corpus of the Trust property, was caused by the petitioner and K.Thirunavukkarasu, her brother, even when they have been kept out of the administration of the Trust, by merely misusing and abusing their lineage of succession as a grand daughter and grand son of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, when the said Masilamani Mudaliyar expressed himself clearly in letter and on record that the acts of Kumarasivam were not reflecting the true interest to safeguard the Trust property and similarly, the action of both Renuka and K.Thirunavukkarasu, the grand children of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, who had also indulged in fabricating the sale deeds and causing alienation of the Trust properties, which are a subject matter of civil proceedings as on date before the Supreme Court, disqualify them from being considered for nomination on the Board of Trustees as members. (ix) The petitioner has contended that she is fully qualified to be appointed as a Trustee as contained in the Trust Deed and she further contended that after the death of her grand father W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, the Trust Board did not choose to appoint or elect one person of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar's family to be on the Board, inspite of several representations by her and her brother. This contention of the petitioner is denied by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit and further stated that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. (x) It is a matter of fact that after the death of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar in 1967, his son Kumarasivam Mudaliyar was brought as a member on the Trust Board and was nominated as the Secretary, whereupon, he also functioned as a Correspondent of the Schools established by the Trust as contemplated under the terms of the Trust Deed. However, due to his misconduct which resulted in criminal proceedings of conviction in a Criminal Court of law, the competent authority disqualified him from continuing as a Secretary of the Trust and thereupon, he was also removed as the Correspondent of all the Schools established by the Trust. The petitioner, having knowledge of such facts, chosen to suppress the same before this Court and alternatively pleading ignorance of these facts, which only exhibits her act of ulterior motive, which is in contrast to the scope and spirit with which her grandfather established the Trust and thereupon being prejudicial to the interest and functioning of the Trust, was non-suited by the competent authorities, to which, no attribution could be caused to the fourth respondent or to their predecessor-in-interest. To this extent, the contention of the petitioner is denied by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit. (xi) The petitioner has knowledge of the proceedings of the Director of School Education, dated 26.10.1977, it is wholly unacceptable on the part of the petitioner that she had no knowledge of the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 5.3.1975 or the proceedings of the Director of School Education, made in D.Dis.No.255970 (G.3)/77, dated 27.2.1978. The petitioner cannot selectively put forth such a contention and misrepresent certain facts, thereby making an allegation against the fourth respondent, while the fourth respondent has only performed his duty as a Secretary of the School Committee as well as the Secretary of the Trust. 5. The petitioner cannot selectively put forth such a contention and misrepresent certain facts, thereby making an allegation against the fourth respondent, while the fourth respondent has only performed his duty as a Secretary of the School Committee as well as the Secretary of the Trust. 5. An additional affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent, after the above counter affidavit, stating as follows: (a) After the death of Masilamani Mudaliyar, his son Kumarasivam was inducted and he being disqualified on conviction, the Board came to be reconstituted with one Mr.N.P.Thanigaiarasu who was the then Joint Secretary, was inducted as a Secretary and the School Committee was constituted in 1978 and as a matter of fact, the said Kumarasivam died on 5.6.1975. Only keeping in mind the terms of the Trust Deed, the direct family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar not being available for consideration to be brought on record, after the death of Kumarasivam in 1975, his son was of the age group, i.e. 17 years, was disqualified in terms of the age and none of the girls of the family who were all married and gone, were not available for consideration. The then Board of Trustees inducted the family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, bearing in mind the terms of the Trust Deed, whereby W.N.Nataraja Mudaliyar, son of Thiru.Duraiswamy Mudaliyar, brother of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar, was brought as the Trustee on the Board of Trust in 1963 and he functioned as the President of the Trust throughout his lifetime till his son Thiru.W.N.Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliyar was inducted as a Trustee only for the reason that he happened to be the family member of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, who is functioning as on date as the Joint Secretary and he is also the Treasurer of the Trust as on date. Further, another close relative of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, Dr.Amaresaon, who is his sister's grand son and renowned Nephrologist, has been inducted in the Board of Trust, which adequately satisfies the terms of the Trust Deed. (b) When the terms of the Trust Deed stipulates the number and the tenure of the Trustees on Board, no addition or deletion to the same can be caused, without due orders from the Civil Court of law, which alone is competent to deal with the modification of the terms of the Trust Deed under the appropriate proceedings to be instituted in law. As regards the present restrainment of the approval to the School Committee is concerned, it causes undue hardship, as the Management is incapacitated from finalising such statutory activities contemplated in law, which is essential for the day-to-day administration of the School, which has been stalled and satisfies the personal interest of the petitioner without bearing in mind any public or charitable interest with which the Trust has been created. Further, only to get rid of the proceedings initiated and pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.24222-24223/10 with reference to the properties alienated by her and her brother, the present proceedings have been initiated. By reason of the interim order, the aid which is to be received by the Management for disbursement of salary for the teachers, had also been put on hold inspite of the fact that the Management has submitted its proposal for approval of the School Committee. Therefore, the fourth respondent prayed for vacating the interim order. 6. In support of the above statements made by the fourth respondent, two independent affidavits have been filed by W.N.Thirunavukkarasu, son of W.D.Nataraja Mudaliyar and Dr.Amaresan, son of Subramani Mudaliyar, stating that to honour the wishes of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, they are included as the family members in the Trust. 7. A reply affidavit to the counter affidavit and additional affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, has been filed, contending as follows: (a) As per the Act and the Rules, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is required to be decided by the authority mentioned in the Act. In the present case, the petitioner's prayer is to direct the third respondent-District Educational Officer, Kanchipuram, to conduct an enquiry before granting approval to the extension of the term of office for the present office bearers of the Trust for a further period from 2011 to 2014. It is the duty of the District Educational Officer to grant approval to the educational agency and the School Committee. If the third respondent found that the family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar is not included in the Trust Board, he is the competent authority to refer the matter to the Civil Court to decide the issue. Pending decision of the Civil Court, the competent authority has to appoint an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, the School Committee or the Secretary. Pending decision of the Civil Court, the competent authority has to appoint an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, the School Committee or the Secretary. In the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner need not approach the Civil Court and the Writ Petition is maintainable in law. (b) The averment that the petitioner's father was implicated in a criminal case and convicted by Court, is totally false, frivolous and misleading. After the order of conviction, the petitioner's father preferred a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.174 of 1974 before the Sessions Court and the appeal was allowed on 5.2.1975 and the conviction and sentence were set aside. After the order of acquittal, the petitioner's father continued as Secretary/Correspondent of the School Committee and educational agency. On 23.1.1976, the petitioner and other legal heirs, filed a petition before the Sessions Court for refund of the fine amount paid in S.C.No.15 of 1974. (c) The averment that the direct family members of W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, were not available for consideration to bring on record after the death of Kumarasivam in 1975, is false and baseless. At that time, when the petitioner's brother Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliyar approached the then Board to include him as a Trustee, was not considered for the reason that he was minor and not attained majority at that time. After attaining majority, the petitioner's brother sent various representations to the fourth respondent on several occasions; on 1.11.2002, he sent representations to all the Trustees and to the shock and surprise, all the Trustees including the fourth respondent (who is continuing as a Secretary from 1996 onwards, i.e. nearly 15 years), rejected his request for another reason that Thiru.W.M.Kumarasivam was convicted by the Court. The allegation that the petitioner's father was convicted by the Court, is false and incorrect and in Crl.A.No.174 of 1974, he was acquitted and the fine amount was also refunded to the legal heirs of the said W.M.Kumarasivam. (d) The petitioner never sold any Trust property and her brother sold his own property. The fourth respondent is running Petrol Bunk in Kanchipuram and to improve his business, knowing fully well that the above property is not the Trust property, has entered into lease agreement with Indian Oil Corporation. Suppressing the above fact, the fourth respondent, with ulterior motive, filed O.S.No.453 of 1998 and the petitioner was not a party in the said suit. The fourth respondent is running Petrol Bunk in Kanchipuram and to improve his business, knowing fully well that the above property is not the Trust property, has entered into lease agreement with Indian Oil Corporation. Suppressing the above fact, the fourth respondent, with ulterior motive, filed O.S.No.453 of 1998 and the petitioner was not a party in the said suit. Against the judgment in O.S.No.453 of 1998, the petitioner's brother filed A.S.No.26 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Kanchipuram and the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment and decree passed in the suit, against which, the fourth respondent filed S.A.No.974 of 2009 before this Court and this Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram. (e) The averment that only to get rid of the proceedings initiated and pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.24222-24223/10 with regard to the properties alienated by the petitioner and her brother, the present proceedings had been initiated, is false. The petitioner never sold any Trust property. Her brother sold his own property. The fourth respondent is running Petrol Bunk in Kanchipuram. To develop his business, knowing fully well that the above property is not the Trust property, has entered into the lease agreement with Indian Oil Corporation, and suppressing the above fact, the fourth respondent, with an ulterior motive, filed O.S.No.453 of 1998, and the petitioner was not a party in the said suit. Against the judgment in O.S.No.453 of 1998, the petitioner's brother filed A.S.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram and the learned Subordinate Judge declared that the petitioner's brother is the absolute owner of the property and it is not the Trust property, against which, the fourth respondent filed S.A.No.974 of 2009 and this Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, against which, the fourth respondent filed the S.L.P. and the petitioner's brother is effectively defending the above S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. 8. On the above background of the pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 9. 8. On the above background of the pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 9. Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the third respondent is an authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, to conduct enquiry before granting approval to the term of office of the present office bearers of the Trust for further period of three years from 2011 to 2014 and it is their duty to grant approval to the educational agency and the School Committee. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that Section 53 of the said Act prohibits the Civil Court to entertain any matter, and it is only this Court has power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to consider the petitioner's grievance and to direct the third respondent to conduct enquiry before granting approval of the term of office of the office bearers of the Trust. 11. On the other hand, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent contended that as per Section 53-A(1) of the said Act, the settlement of dispute as to educational agency, etc., is a matter for the competent Civl Court, which would hear the dispute as to the constitution of any educational agency, or as to whether any person or body of persons, is an educational agency, in relation to any private school, or as to the constitution of a School Committee or as to the appointment of Secretary of the School Committee and such dispute may be referred by the persons interested or by the competent authority to the Civil Court having jurisdiction for its decision. Learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent further contended that the request made by the petitioner in her representation as well as the petitioner's claim, is only in respect of the inclusion of her name in the Board of Trustees and therefore, Section 92(1) of the Civil Procedure Code will apply, which states that in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive Trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such Trust, the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the Trust and having obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction, and more particularly, in respect of appointing a new Trustee as per Clause (b) of Section 92(1) of CPC. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that, on the contrary, the petitioner invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable before this Court. 12. Though "Rule Nisi" had been served on the official respondents 1 to 3, they have not filed any counter affidavit, but they have given instructions to Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who, on instructions, submitted that as regards the properties of the Trust in question, the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P., but now, the claim of the petitioner is in respect of inclusion of her name in the Board of Trustees, and therefore, as stipulated under Section 53-A(1) of the said Act, the competent authority may be directed to refer the matter to a Civil Court, in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 92 of the CPC that in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive Trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, a decree shall be obtained for appointing a new Trustee, and the authority may look into the matter in the manner as provided under Section 92 CPC. 13. 13. Learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that under Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, the third respondent can look into the approval of the Secretary of the School Committee, and under Rule 13(1), the educational agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the School Committee and under Rule 13(2) of the said Rules, the term of office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three years and under Rule 13(3), the Secretary of the School Committee shall function for and on behalf of the School Committee and the educational agency and as per Rule 13(5), the Secretary shall not interfere in the internal administration of the School and therefore, he contended that the inclusion of the Trustee is a matter for consideration by the competent Civil Court and it cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the above claim of the parties and on consideration of their respective submissions, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether a direction as sought for by the petitioner, to the third respondent to conduct enquiry before granting approval of the extension of the term of office for the present office bearer of the Trust, for a further period of three years from 2011 to 2014, could be granted and whether the same is within the jurisdiction of this Court or not. 15. To examine the abovesaid question, it is to be seen that the Trust was established in 1963 by Late Thiru.W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, who founded the Trust with the aim to give education to the people in and around Walajabad, Kanchipuram, under the registered Trust Deed (Document No.2545/63 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad) on 4.9.1963 and seven permanent Trustees were appointed at the time of creation of the Trust (as quoted earlier) and thereafter, the said Founder-Trustee W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar died in 1967 and his son Kumarasivam was inducted as a Trustee and was also given position as Secretary of the Trust, and thereafter, he was also holding the position as Secretary of the School and later on, because of his involvement in a criminal case, he was disqualified and such disqualification was also taken into account by the competent authority and the said Kumarasivam died in 1974. It is seen that thereafter, a member of the family of the said W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar was to be inducted as a Trustee and this claim was not claimed by the petitioner at the earliest point of time from 1978 to 2011 and the Board of Trustees was re-constituted and the School Committee was also re-constituted and approved by the competent authority on 27.2.1978 and that has been continued and the term of office of the School Committee expired on 5.3.2011. That being so, when the fourth respondent was about to get the approval for the term of office for three years from 2011 to 2014, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 requesting to conduct enquiry and to pass appropriate orders in time, directing the present Trustees to include the petitioner as one of the Trustees in the Trust. Therefore, it is seen from the claim of the petitioner that the representation was only for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Board of Trustees and thereafter, the approval of the term of office of the office bearers, be granted. 16. The claim of the petitioner is that the inclusion of the Trustee is a matter for the authorities to decide by conducting enquiry and to proceed further for the approval. It is nowhere pointed out by the petitioner that under what provision of law, the enquiry has to be conducted. There is a bar of jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 53 and 53-A (1) of the said Act. Rule 13 of the said Rules lays down the provisions for the nomination of the Secretary of the School Committee, term of office, functions, interference by Secretary, etc. Under Rule 13(1) of the said Rules, the educational agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the School Committee. Under Rule 13(2), the term of office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three years, however, he shall be eligible for re-nomination as Secretary for subsequent terms and if the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior permission of the District Educational Officer. Rule 13(5) states that the Secretary shall not interfere in the internal administration of the School. 17. Rule 13(5) states that the Secretary shall not interfere in the internal administration of the School. 17. On a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in respect of the educational agency and the School Committee, the authorities are competent to examine the question and the educational agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the School Committee and if such proposal is sent by them, they can look into the matter. With regard to the inclusion of a person as a Trustee in the Board of Trustees, as per the intention of the testator-W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar in respect of the Trust Deed, no doubt, it is admitted that the testator has intended for nomination of a member of the family as a Trustee, after his death. It is the stand of the Trustees that the nomination was not available after the death of Kumarasivam and thereafter, his son Thirunavukkarasu involved in mal-administration and now, the petitioner is claiming her inclusion as a Trustee and before doing that, she prayed for a direction to conduct enquiry. 18. As per Section 92 of the CPC, the Civil Court is competent to deal with the matter regarding the appointment of a new Trustee. Section 92(1) CPC reads as follows: "Section 92: Public charities:--(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree-- ... ... ....... (b) appointing a new trustee ....." 19. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioner is that the intention of the testator-W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, be carried out by including a family member as the Trustee, and therefore, it is the claim of the petitioner to appoint her as a Trustee she being one of the family members. ... ....... (b) appointing a new trustee ....." 19. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioner is that the intention of the testator-W.T.Masilamani Mudaliyar, be carried out by including a family member as the Trustee, and therefore, it is the claim of the petitioner to appoint her as a Trustee she being one of the family members. It is not materially proved that the authorities are empowered to conduct enquiry before granting the approval of the extension of the term of office for the present office bearers of the Trust. The Secretary of the School Committee has to be nominated by the educational agency as provided under Rule 13 of the said Rules. Section 53 of the said Act provides bar of Civil Court from deciding questions under the said Act. In case of any dispute over the educational agency, the same has to be settled by the competent Court having jurisdiction, as provided under Section 53-A(1) of the said Act. Sections 53 and 53-A(1) of the said Act reads as follows: "Section 53: Civil Court not to decide questions under this Act:No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be decided or dealt with by any authority or officer mentioned in this Act." "Section 53-A : Settlement of dispute as to educational agency, etc.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 53, whenever any dispute as to the constitution of any educational agency, or as to whether any person or body of persons, is an educational agency, in relation to any private school, or as to the constitution of a school committee, or as to the appointment of the secretary of the school committee, arises, such dispute may be referred by the persons interested or by the competent authority to the civil court having jurisdiction, for its decision." 20. On a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the dispute has to be referred either by the person interested or by the competent authority, to the Civil Court having jurisdiction for its own decision. 21. Therefore, the only remedy available to the parties is that either the petitioner or any person interested or the competent authority, has to move the Civil Court having jurisdiction. 21. Therefore, the only remedy available to the parties is that either the petitioner or any person interested or the competent authority, has to move the Civil Court having jurisdiction. On the other hand, the petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for inclusion of her name as a Trustee in the Board of Trustees or for the educational agency, and to conduct an enquiry before granting approval to the extension of the term of office for the present office bearers of the Trust, which are all not under the realm of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, taking into account the over-all facts in this case and that in respect of the Trust properties, the Supreme Court is seized of the matter and the petitioner herein claims for inclusion of her name in the Trust Board and the same being the dispute between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition does not merit consideration invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. However, it is open for the person interested or the competent authority, to decide as to whether the claim of the petitioner is a matter to be referred to the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and it is for them to initiate appropriate steps to refer the same before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 23. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioner or the person interested or the respondents concerned or the competent authority, to move before appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in this Writ Petition, in which event, it is open to the parties concerned to agitate all the pleadings raised in this Writ Petition and all other available grounds, before the Civil Court. It is made clear that while deciding the case, the Civil Court shall independently decide the issues raised, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order, on merits and in accordance with law. 24. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.