Judgment V.G. SABHAHIT, J 1. This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.30998/2009, being aggrieved by the order dated 9-4-2010 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed Annexure-E, notice issued by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutional and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore (Respondent No.1) and also held that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to consider the appointment of hereditary trustee when there is serious dispute and rival claim for appointment to the vacant post of Trustee. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and directed all the parties to agitate their rights regarding hereditary trusteeship in the Civil Court. 2. W.P. No. 30998/2009 was filed by the petitioner challenging the notice received by him from the first respondent intimating that in view of death of Sri. M. Balakrishna Hedge, who was performing the duties of the trust as fit person appointed by the first respondent had expired on 20-3-2009, and wherefore, the post of trustee had fallen vacant and steps have to be taken for filling up of the said post of trustee. The petitioner was directed to appear for enquiry on 9-10-2009, with all documents, failing which, it will be taken that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter and further proceedings would be taken. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent on 9-10-2009 and thereafter he filed a writ petition contending that the Commissioner first respondent had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and appoint hereditary trustee and contended that notice could not have been issued by the first respondent and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Sri. Mahatobara Veerabhadra Temple, Hiriadka (hereinafter called as the ‘temple’), Bommarabettu village, Udupi is being managed by the hereditary trustees belonging to the family called Kurla Hegde family. There are three branches in the Kurla Hegde family (1) Anjaru family, (2) Vondhibettu family; and (3) Mombettu family. The first respondent by an order dated 16-2-1971 appointed Sri. Balakrishna Hegde who belongs to Mombettu family to be a Trustee of the temple and he is the brother of the petitioner. The said Balakrishna Hegde died on 28-3-2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already made an application to appoint him as a Trustee after the death of Balakrishna Hegde, as he belonged to Mombettu family and subsequently respondents 3 to 9 also filed applications. The said Balakrishna Hegde died on 28-3-2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already made an application to appoint him as a Trustee after the death of Balakrishna Hegde, as he belonged to Mombettu family and subsequently respondents 3 to 9 also filed applications. Therefore, there is a disputed question of fact as to who is to be appointed as hereditary trustee and the same cannot be gone into by the first respondent as the matter has to be agitated before the Competent Civil Court and there is no dispute regarding the appointment of the hereditary trustee. There was consent of all the members for appointing a member as a trustee and an entry can also be made in the present case. Wherefore, having regard to the rival claim and contentions, the disputed question of appointment of trustee should not have gone into by the first respondent. Wherefore, the notice issued is liable to be set aside. 4. The petition was resisted by the respondents contending that there is no disputed question of fact as the fact of appointment of trustee from three branches of the family are to be made as per the decree passed on 11-10-1890, wherein it was observed that the members of three branches of the family namely, Anjaru, Vonthibettu and Mombettu have to be appointed as hereditary trustee on rotation basis. After the expiry of the trustee, vacancy has to be filled up by appointing the senior most members in the family as hereditary trustee and it is not disputed. It is also not disputed that Balakrishna Hegde was not appointed on the basis of the deed referred to above but he was appointed as trustee as a fit person until further orders and he continued to be so till the date of his death i.e. till 28-3-2009. Therefore, there is no dispute about the name of the person to be entered as a trustee. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinizing the materials on record by an order dated 9-4-2010 held that when the disputed question in relation to the hereditary trusteeship is involved, the same has to be resolved by the Civil Court and the same cannot be decided by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments who is the first respondent herein. Wherefore, the notice issued is without jurisdiction and void. Accordingly, allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9-4-2010, this appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. 6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.8 and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 who is the petitioner in the writ petition and also the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 and 2. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has narrated the facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal by the 3rd respondent in writ petition and submitted that the first respondent has not taken any decision about the appointment of the trustee after the death of Balakrishna Hegde on 28-3-2009 and only issued notice asking the parties to appear before him on 9-10-2009. It is well settled that in view of Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1993, when there is no dispute about appointing a person as a trustee, the first respondent can appoint a trustee, but when there is a serious dispute about the question of fact as to who has to be appointed, it requires a detailed investigation. Then the power of the first respondent has to be considered, however, the first respondent has not yet taken any decision and the matter is still at the stage of initiation of proceedings by issuing notice and question of jurisdiction can also be urged before the first respondent. In view of the above, no ground whatsoever is made out for quashing the Annexure-E, the notice issued by he first respondent. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner has also made an application before the first respondent for appointing him as a trustee in the vacant pot caused due to the death of Balakrishna Hegde. Therefore, it is not open to him to contend that the Commissioner-first respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint a trustee. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent writ petitioner submits that when he filed an application for appointment of a trustee before the first respondent, there were no applications filed for appointment of trustee. Therefore, it is not open to him to contend that the Commissioner-first respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint a trustee. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent writ petitioner submits that when he filed an application for appointment of a trustee before the first respondent, there were no applications filed for appointment of trustee. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that when there are disputed questions of fact as to who is to be appointed as hereditary trustee, a detailed investigation cannot be made by the first respondent and parties have to work out their remedy by approaching he Civil Court. Section 3(3) of the Act only enables the first respondent to make interim arrangement and does not enable to appoint a trustee. Learned Counsel further submitted that Balakrishna Hegde who had been appointed only as a fit person has worked as trustee from 1971 and after his death. Dr. Sunil Hegde who is the son of Balakrishna Hedge has already been appointed by way of interim arrangement. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 submitted that no ground whatsoever has been made out for quashing the impugned notice Annexure-E in the writ petition and the first respondent-Commissioner himself can decide the question of jurisdiction. If he had given a decision on that aspect and passed an order, the writ petition filed challenging the notice would not have been allowed and the notice would not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge. Wherefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the first respondent has jurisdiction to appoint a trustee under Section 3(3) of the Act. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in his reply submitted that Dr. Sunil Hegde has not been appointed as a trustee as an interim measure and he was appointed only to supervise the Jathra and Car Festival and his appointment has been withdrawn on 19-9-2009 and the same is challenged in the writ petition which is pending consideration before learned Single Judge. 12. We have given careful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record. 13. 12. We have given careful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record. 13. We do not propose to consider the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in detail in view of the order we proposed to make, as it is well settled that a notice asking a person to appear along with documents can be set aside only in exceptional circumstances when the notice issued is wholly without jurisdiction. In the present case, when the writ petitioner himself has made an application before the first respondent for appointing him as trustee and thereafter the other contesting respondents have filed their applications for appointment as trustee, it is not open to the writ petitioner to contend that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the question. However, it is well settled that the circumstances under which, the first respondent-Commissioner has got powers to appoint a trustee, when there is no dispute, whereas he cannot make entry when there is serious dispute and has to drive the parties to Civil Court. However, that aspect is a point to be determined by the first respondent himself as it is well settled under certain circumstances that the Commissioner can appoint a trustee. Wherefore, notice cannot be said to be without jurisdiction it the notice is apparently without jurisdiction. It was not necessary for the learned Single Judge to go into the merits of the case by setting aside the notice and giving a finding on driving the parties to the Civil Court. Admittedly, an application of the appellant, other contesting respondents in the writ petition and that of the writ petitioner is pending consideration before the first respondent and no order has been passed. Therefore, it is always open to the writ petitioner to take all contentions including the question of jurisdiction to appoint a trustee before the first respondent. Wherefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the impugned notice at Annexure-E. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is entitled to be allowed. However, this order in any way does not affect the rights of 7th respondent and his application for adjournment has been rejected by a separate order as the 7th respondent has not preferred any appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. However, this order in any way does not affect the rights of 7th respondent and his application for adjournment has been rejected by a separate order as the 7th respondent has not preferred any appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal filed by one of the respondents is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 9-4-2010 in W.P. No.30998/2009 quashing Annexure-E is set aside. All the contentions of the parties including the question of jurisdiction of the first respondent to appoint a Trustee are kept open to be urged before the first respondent and the first respondent shall consider all the contentions independently without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment or in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been set aside in this appeal. All the parties including the 7th respondent shall appear before the first respondent on 11-4-2011. The Registry is directed to intimate the date fixed for appearance of the parties before the first respondent to the 7th respondent to avoid any inconvenience and to seek further instructions in the matter. The first respondent is directed to complete the proceedings, if the parties co-operate, expeditiously, at any rate not later than four months from 11-4-2011.