Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 28.10.2011, declining the request of the petitioners for extension of tenure as trustees of 'Arulmigu Muthukumaraswamy @ Kandaswamy Thirukovil Vasantha Mandapam Trust'. 2. In a civil suit C.S.No. 265 of 1938 -T.K.KANDAPPA CHETTIYAR AND OTHERS v. P.A.NATARAJA CHETTIAR, a scheme was framed for running a trust. The scheme stipulated as under, "For the Vasantha Mandapam Trust, during December month 4 trustees have been appointed by you. For these 4 Trustees, one year time limit of functioning has been given to them. Thereafter, in accordance with general orders, their duration of functioning has been extended upto two years. But as per the High Court's Scheme No. 265/1938, the duration of functioning of the above trustees are 5 years. Till this year, you have appointed the trustees for 5 years durations only. Hence, instead of two years time limit, as per the above scheme of High Court, the time of functioning may be extended upto 5 years, and accordingly, issue orders for the same, as requested by hereto. " 3. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was enacted, which stands repealed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 4. Section 118 of the Act reads as under, 118.) Repeals and Savings. - (1) The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1951, (herein after in this section referred to as the said Act) is hereby repealed. 4. Section 118 of the Act reads as under, 118.) Repeals and Savings. - (1) The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1951, (herein after in this section referred to as the said Act) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act by sub section (1) - (a) all rules made, or deemed to have been made, notifications or certificates issued or deemed to have been issued, orders passed or deemed to have been passed, decisions made or deemed to have been made, proceedings or action taken or deemed to have been taken, scheme settled or deemed to have been settled and things done or deemed to have been done by the Government, the Commissioner, a Deputy Commissioner, an Area Committee or an Assistant Commissioner under the said Act, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, be deemed to have been made, issued, passed, taken settled or done by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and shall have effect accordingly; (b) (i) if any provision contained in any scheme settled or deemed to have been settled under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1926, Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927, including a scheme settled under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Central Act V of 1908) and in force immediately before the 30th September 1951 is repugnant to any provision contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, the latter provisions shall prevail, and the former provision shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void; (ii) all powers conferred and all duties imposed by such scheme on any court or Judge or any other person or body of persons not being a trustee or trustees or an honorary officer or servant of the religious institution or endowment, shall be exercised and discharged by the Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, (c) all orders made under section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927) shall, notwithstanding that they are inconsistent with this Act, continue in force, but any such order may at any time be modified or cancelled by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, if it is an order made under sub section (1) or sub section (3) of that section and by the Commissioner if it is an order made under sub-section (4) or sub section (5) of that section; and any person aggrieved by any modification or cancellation made by the Joint Commissioner, or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner within such time as may be prescribed. (3) The mention of particular matters in this section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of sections 8 and 18 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1891) with regard to the effect of repeals. " 5. It was in pursuance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, that the power which was vested in High Court under the scheme to appoint a Trustee, stood vested with the Commissioner. 6. The Commissioner, in exercise of power, appointed the following persons as trustees. 1.) Th.G.Gopal S/o. Govindasamy Chettiar, 233, Evereday Colony, 18th Street, Kodungaiyur, Chennai 118. 2.) Th. Elangovan, S/o. Kuppusamy Chettiar, 20, Pommu Chetty St., Park Town, Chennai. 3 3.) Th. P.N.Thangarajan, S/o. P.Natesan Chettiar, 9, Subbu Chetty Street, Chennai 3. 4.) Th. A.T.Shanmugam, S/o. Thanickachalam, 6/84, Perambur Chetty St., Washermanpet, Chennai.21. 5.) Th. S.Muthu, Senior Trustee, Arulmighu Kandasamy Thirukkoil, Rasappa Chetty St., Chennai. -3 7. The petitioners, excluding Thiru. S.Muthu, Senior Trustee, moved the Commissioner for extension of tenure as Trustees. The request was accepted and tenure was extended by another one year. 8. On expiry of the term, the petitioner again filed, application for extension of tenure. The application has been rejected vide impugned order, on the ground that as per Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the maximum period for which trustee can be appointed is two years, therefore, the petitioners' request was not accepted. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order, on the ground that under the scheme framed by this Court, the tenure of members of the Trustees was fixed for five years, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to decline the request on the ground that the tenure could not be extended beyond two years. 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in view of the scheme, the Senior Trustee was appointed for five years and therefore, by applying the same yardstick, the petitioners are also entitled to continue as Trustees for five years. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. 11. 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in view of the scheme, the Senior Trustee was appointed for five years and therefore, by applying the same yardstick, the petitioners are also entitled to continue as Trustees for five years. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that in view of Section 118(b), of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the judgment and decree passed by any Court are subject to the provisions of the Act, which has over riding effect on the judgment and decree. 12. In view of the bar under Section 47(3) of the Act, the application of the petitioners was rightly rejected, as the first respondent did not have any jurisdiction to appoint Trustees for a period of more than two years. The petitioners had been appointed for two years in two separate terms by extending one year first term with another one year of second term. 13. On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be faulted with. But at the same time, it is the duty of the Commissioner to appoint Trustees, in terms of the Act, for a period of two years. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in case the petitioners makes an appropriate application showing eligibility for appointment, then their case can be considered for fresh appointment, but their application for extension cannot be considered being against the statute. 14. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move appropriate application for appointment as Trustees as per the eligibility criteria laid down by this Court in the scheme and if any such application is moved, it shall be considered by the first respondent and disposed of within one month of the date of receipt of the application for appointment as Trustee. No costs. Connected MP is also closed.