JUDGMENT :- 1. Mr. S. Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Writ Petitioners are stated to be the lessees of the various portions of the lands belonging to Sri Thirumaleeswarar Vagaiyara Thirukkoil, Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukkoil & Thiruvalambeswarar Thirukkoil, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukkoil, Arulmigu Dhurgaiamman Thirukkoil, Arulmigu Kambap Perumal Thirukkoil, Arulmigu Ayyanar Thirukoil and Arulmigu Konnaiamman Thirukkoil at Gangavalli Taluk in Salem District. It is seen that one Narayanasamy was the Chairman and Trustees of the temples and during his period these petitioners were inducted as tenants. 3. The submission of the learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) is that the Chairmanship of said Narayanasamy had already come to an end during 2006 itself and new Board has taken charge for the maintenance of the temples, inspite of it, the petitioners are paying rents to Narayanasamy. Whether the said amounts have been accounted to the temple account or not, is a question ultimately to be decided by the Commissioner of HR & CE. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on some of the rental accounts duly audited. But, this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects and it is for the Commissioner of HR & CE to decide the same. After the new Government has taken charge, it appears that the earlier Board passed resolution on 3.6.2011, recommending to extend the period of lease for two more years on the ground that during 2010-2011, the petitioners being the small farmers rising the cotton crops are affected due to excess rain. It was under those circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner, viz. the first respondent has passed the impugned order on 10.6.2011 stating that lease granted to the petitioners was not authorised and if any such lease was granted, the law does not permit such lease to be recognised. 5. Therefore, the reason given by the Board that there has been excess rain, cannot be a ground for the purpose of extending the lease period or otherwise the first respondent has expressed his inability to extend this period. 5. Therefore, the reason given by the Board that there has been excess rain, cannot be a ground for the purpose of extending the lease period or otherwise the first respondent has expressed his inability to extend this period. This issue is covered by the Rules framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act namely the Religious Institutions (Lease of immovable property) Rule, 1963.As per the Rules, the usual method of lease is by public auction. However, in cases where there are no Executive Officer and no single trustee is available to be a Chairman of the Board of Trustees, ultimately it is the sanction of the Commissioner of HR & CE which prevails as it is seen in respect of Rule 2 of the said Rules which reads as follows: "2. Lease by public auction – Lease of immovable property and rights belonging to a religious institution shall be made by public auction. The auction shall ordinarily be conducted in the place in which the property is situate or the rights exist: Provided that he Join Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may, either suo motu or on an application made to him by the executive authority, permit the holding of such an auction at a place within the district, other than the one in which the property is situate if he is satisfied that it will not be detrimental to securing a proper bid." 5. Rule 11 of the Rules reads as follows: "11. Lease otherwise than by public auction.-- (1) The Commissioner on an application, made to him by the executive authority of a religious institution, may permit the lease of any property or any right otherwise than by public auction, if he is satisfied that the interest of the institution will not suffer by dispensing with the public auction." 6. In any event, the discretion on the part of the Commissioner of HR & CE Department to permit lease of any property otherwise than by public auction in which event, he has to satisfy himself that the interest of the Institution does not suffer. Therefore, taking note of the interest of the Institution, the public auction can be dispensed with only by the Commissioner of HR & CE. Therefore, taking note of the interest of the Institution, the public auction can be dispensed with only by the Commissioner of HR & CE. In such view of the matter, eventhough the reasons assigned by the first respondent may be acceptable, in my considered view, he has no power to extend the lease by using the method of public auction as per the Rules elicited above. 7. In such view of the matter, it is open to each of the leaseholders who are the petitioners herein to make necessary representations by way of Applications to the Commissioner of HR & CE Department and if such representations are made by each of the petitioners by assigning reasons and substantiating with proof that they have paid the rents upto date, the Commissioner shall act exercising the powers conferred under the Rules and decide the issue either in favour of the petitioners by extending the lease otherwise by public auction, after getting necessary opinion and proposals from the authorities concerned and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is needless to state that till such orders are passed, the petitioners if they are in possession of land and paid rents in the manner known to law, they shall not be disturbed. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.