ORDER 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, withdrawing the exemption granted under Section 4 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to the Temple established by the petitioner, is the core issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition. Factual background :- 2. This writ petition is directed against the order in G.O.Ms.No.55 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, dated 19 March 2013, whereby and whereunder, the exemption granted to Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya Temple, Nanganallur, founded and run by Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, vide Orders in G.O.Ms.No.346 dated 1 October 2012 and G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 18 March 1996, were cancelled. 3. The petitioner is a trust formed by Tvl. S. Ramani, M. Purushothaman and K.R.V. Srinivasa Rao, for the purpose of establishing a religious institution for propogating Hindu Religious tenets and culture. The deed of Trust dated 4 February 1985 was registered before the District Registrar, Chennai South. The trust resolved to construct a temple for Lord Anjaneya in Nanganallur. The petitioner purchased property in the name of the trust and thereafter constructed the temple. The idol was named as Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya. 4. The trust, after constructing the temple, submitted an application dated 28 August 1995 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”) to exempt the temple from the provisions of T.N. HR & CE Act, 1959. The Government was pleased to grant exemption to the temple founded by the trust from certain provisions of HR & CE Act and Rules made thereunder. Subsequently, the petitioner made a further request to grant exemption from certain other provisions of HR & CE Act. The Government once again passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 18 March 1996, granting exemption to the temple run by the trust, from few other provisions of the Act. 5. While the matters stood thus, the first respondent issued a notice dated 11 October 2012, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the exemption should not be withdrawn. The first respondent alleged certain irregularities in the matter of administration of temple. The first respondent alleged that the petitioner collected donations in the name of the temple and the entire income was appropriated by the trust. The first respondent alleged certain irregularities in the matter of administration of temple. The first respondent alleged that the petitioner collected donations in the name of the temple and the entire income was appropriated by the trust. It was further alleged that the petitioner misused the exemption by diverting the funds. 6. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice wherein it was indicated that exemption was given to the temple run by the trust only and as such, there was nothing wrong in utilizing the funds of the temple by the trust. 7. The first respondent notwithstanding the explanation given by the petitioner, passed an order withdrawing the exemptions granted to the temple. The said order is under challenge in the writ petition at the instance of the trust. Rival contentions :- 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the order of exemptions granted by the first respondent dated 1 November 1995 and 18 March 1997, contended that the Government was fully aware that the trust alone was conducting the affairs of the temple and as such, there was nothing wrong in utilizing the temple funds for purchasing property by the trust or for other lawful objects of the trust. According to the learned counsel, the trust was managing the affairs of the temple and receipts were issued in the name of the Trust to the devotees. The first respondent was well aware of the ownership of the temple and it was with the full knowledge, exemptions were given. Therefore, it was not correct to say that there was diversion of funds. It was further contended that there should be sufficient reasons to withdraw the order of exemption. According to the learned counsel, none of the reasons found in the impugned order would be sufficient to withdraw the order of exemption given to the petitioner long back and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned Advocate General submitted that the exemption was given only to the temple and not to the trust. The fact that the temple was under the management of the trust would not give a right to the trust to appropriate the income earned by the temple. 9. The learned Advocate General submitted that the exemption was given only to the temple and not to the trust. The fact that the temple was under the management of the trust would not give a right to the trust to appropriate the income earned by the temple. The learned Advocate General, by placing on record the information collected from the website of the trust, submitted that the trust has been soliciting donations from the devotees by projecting that the temple has been undertaking various religious activities. The trust has also been collecting huge amount by way of sale of Archana Tickets and all such incomes were diverted to the trust. The learned Advocate General further contended that the exemption was an act of concession and as such, the Government was fully correct in taking away the said concession at a later point of time on account of specific reasons. Factual Analysis :- 10. The petitioner is stated to be a charitable trust. The petitioner trust purchased large extent of property for the purpose of constructing a temple. The property was purchased in the name of the trust. The trust thereafter constructed a temple under the name and style of Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya Temple at Nanganallur. The trust filed an application under Section 4 of the Act, requesting the Government to exempt the temple from the provisions of HR & CE Act. 11. The Government considered the application under Section 4 of the HR & CE Act and exempted Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya Temple, Ram Nagar, Nanganallur, founded and run by Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust, from certain provisions of the Act. The order dated 1 November 1995, exempted the petitioner from the provisions of Section 26, 35, 36, 45, 47, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 86 and 103 of the HR & CE Act and the related rules. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said exemption. The petitioner thereafter, made another application on 29 November 1995 requesting the Government to exempt the temple from certain other provisions of the Act. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said exemption. The petitioner thereafter, made another application on 29 November 1995 requesting the Government to exempt the temple from certain other provisions of the Act. The Government once again considered the application and passed orders on 18 March 1996 by exempting the temple from the provisions of Sections 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 43, 70, 71, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 of the HR & CE Act and the rules framed thereunder. 12. The trust continued to manage the temple, even after the orders of exemption given by the Government. The trust collected seva charges from devotees by issuing receipts in the name of the trust. Donations received from the public were also shown as the income of the trust. The trust also purchased property by using the income from the temple. 13. The Government having apprised of the fact that the entire temple income were diverted to the trust without any kind of separate accounting, issued a show cause notice on 11 October 2012. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 25 October 2012. The petitioner admitted that the temple was not maintaining separate accounts. According to the petitioner, the trust was managing the temple and as such, the trust has every right to collect offerings and donations from the public. The explanation submitted to the show cause notice was considered by the Government. The Government was of the view that the trust diverted the temple funds and the same was not properly accounted. The exemption granted to the temple was taken as a blanket exemption by the trust to collect donations and seva charges from devotees. The trust through its web site requested the devotees of Lord Anjaneya to donate amount to the temple. However, the donation amount, after receipt, was appropriated only by the trust. Diversion of funds appears to be the main reason which prompted the Government to withdraw the orders of exemption. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up a specific contention that exemption was given only to the trust and as such, the allegation that the trust diverted and misused the funds, has no basis. 15. Diversion of funds appears to be the main reason which prompted the Government to withdraw the orders of exemption. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up a specific contention that exemption was given only to the trust and as such, the allegation that the trust diverted and misused the funds, has no basis. 15. The basic question is whether the order of exemption granted to the temple would enure to the benefit of the trust, thereby enabling the trust to appropriate the entire income collected from the devotees and donations from the public, without any kind of accountability. 16. Section 4 of the Act reads thus :- “The Government may, by notification exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively from the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, any religious institution or religious or Charitable Endowment or vary or cancel any such exemption : Provided that before such exemption is varied or cancelled, the person affected shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such variation or cancellation”. 17. Exemption under Section 4 of the Act cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Government have to take several factors into account before granting exemption. 18. The Government was under no obligation to grant exemption to the temple. The Government considered the factum of construction of temple by the trust and taking into account the fact that the temple has been functioning for more than ten years, granted exemption. The exemption was not given to the Trust. It was specifically given to the temple run by the trust. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner was harping on the point that the exemption would amount to a right, conferred on the petitioner, and as such, there should be sufficient reasons to take away such right at a later point of time. 20. The question raised by the petitioner with regard to the sufficiency of reasons for withdrawal of exemption has to be considered in the light of the allegations made in the show cause notice, the explanation given by the petitioner and the findings given by the Government. The impugned order itself contains a detailed reference about the allegations and corresponding findings recorded by the Government. The Government have given a factual finding with respect to each and every charge levelled against the petitioner. The impugned order itself contains a detailed reference about the allegations and corresponding findings recorded by the Government. The Government have given a factual finding with respect to each and every charge levelled against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order reads thus :- “8. AND WHEREAS the Government have carefully examined the remarks of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in the letter sixth read above and the explanation of the Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust and observed as follows :- Reason (1) : 22 Seva charges are collected and receipts issued in the name of the Trust and not in the name of the temple. Decision of the Government : No where in the Trust Deed, in is found that the object of the Trust is to found and build a temple for Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya Temple. There is also no provision or object found in the Trust deed to maintain the Temple. So, it cannot be said that the temple is the property of the Trust and its maintenance is one of the main objects of the Trust. It is also incorrect to state that the temple is only a division of the trust. Sevas are performed in the temple and in the presence of the devotees to the deity. Therefore, any amount collected from the devotees should go to the temple and not to the Trust on of whose objects may be to maintain the temple. Therefore, the trust has no authority to collect seva charges from the devotees in the name of the temple and to deposit in to the Trust’s account, leaving the idol in lurch. Reason (2) : No Bank account is opened in the name of the temple and all receipts/payments are through Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust and Sri Phavamah Annadhanam Trust Bank accounts. Decision of the Government : The explanation given by the Bakatha Samajam is not acceptable and convincing. After the temple came into existence,any amount received as seva charge in the Temple should be deposited in a separate account opened in the name of the temple and not to be mingled with the trust account. As such separate Bank accounts have to be maintained for any amount collected in the name of the temple from the devotees and donors. As such separate Bank accounts have to be maintained for any amount collected in the name of the temple from the devotees and donors. Similarly, separate Bank accounts have to be maintained in the name of the Trust for the donations, contribution etc. made to the trust by its trustees and others. Thus, both the trust and the temple are separate legal entities. Reason (3) : No property was purchased in the name of the temple but only in the name of the trust. Decision of the Government : The trust has collected enormous funds from the devotees in the name of the deity and have subsequently purchased properties in the name of the trust. Even then, no property was acquired or purchased either in the name of the temple or the deity, but in the name of the Trust. The idol of the temple should not be given up by the Trust. As and when the Trust purchased land and built a temple for public religious worship, then the property by such usage and dedication to the public becomes the public property and the trust has no authority to hold it as the property of the trust. If the trust is the founder of the temple, then it should get declaration under the provisions of the Act regarding the management of the temple. Reason (4) While the two Government notifications exempted the temple only from certain provisions of the Act, whereas such exemption has been exhibited in the Rakshabandanam notice issued by the Trust. Decision of the Government : Admittedly, exemptions from operation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules have been granted only to the temple and not to the activities of the Trust at any point of time. If the Trust admits that exemption was granted to them, then admittedly the trust is also amenable to the provisions of the act and the rules. Reason (5) On going through the exempted provisions of the Act, it appears that the entire temple administration is exempted from the operation of the Act. Since the income/expenditure are not incurred in the name of the temple, such exemption is not acceptable to the Department. Decision of the Government : A temple cannot be without any income and expenditure for its daily administration. Since the income/expenditure are not incurred in the name of the temple, such exemption is not acceptable to the Department. Decision of the Government : A temple cannot be without any income and expenditure for its daily administration. The alleged Trust cannot swindle the legitimate income received by the temple which is offered by the devotees having faith in God and not as donations or contributions to the Trust and its activities. As the activities of the Trust is restricted by its own bye laws, it is inadmissible that the temple is controlled by the Trust. Reason 6(a) :- While the trust deed of Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust was furnished, the deed for Sri Phavamah Annadhanam Trust was not furnished. Decision of the Government : Sri Marthi Baktha Samajam Trust and Sri Phavamah Annadhanam Trust are admittedly for public religious and charitable purposes and they are also associated with religious and charitable objects. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are amenable in particular to the religious and Charitable objects and will fall within the ambit of law. Sri Phavman Annadhana Trust is created to feed the devotees coming to the temple. Reason 6(b) Both Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust and Sri Phavamah Annadhanam Trust are collecting donations in the name of temple from public through website of the temple. Decision of the Government : The rates fixed for various Sevas cannot be said to be in the manner of information to public but an invitation to the public to subscribe and avail the benefits of the Sevas and to get divine grace of the God. 9. AND WHEREAS after careful consideration, taking into account the reasons stated in para 8 above, the following facts emerge : (i) The Trust has misused the exemption granted to the temple under Section 4; and (ii) The trust has diverted the funds and donations collected from the devotees.” 21. The Government have given string of reasons in support of the order withdrawing the exemption given to the temple. Judicial review is essentially against the decision making process. Sufficiency of reasons cannot ordinarily be subjected to judicial review. The order of exemption itself being a concession, the Government was having every right to cancel it, at a subsequent point of time. Before cancelling the exemption, the petitioner was given due notice, and a reasonable opportunity to submit the explanation. Judicial review is essentially against the decision making process. Sufficiency of reasons cannot ordinarily be subjected to judicial review. The order of exemption itself being a concession, the Government was having every right to cancel it, at a subsequent point of time. Before cancelling the exemption, the petitioner was given due notice, and a reasonable opportunity to submit the explanation. The petitioner has no case that the Government violated the principles of natural justice. There was no infirmity in the decision making process. The Law : 22. The Supreme Court in Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 142 : (1987) 1 SCC 31 , while considering the question of exemption granted under the Sales Tax Act and the plea taken by the industry, based on the concept of promissory estoppel, to challenge the order withdrawing exemption, observed that concession can be withdrawn at a later point of time on justifiable reasons. The relevant observation reads thus :- “9. Viewed from another perspective, it may be noticed that the State Government was under no obligation to grant exemption from sales tax. The appellants could not, therefore, have insisted on the State Government granting exemption to them from payment of sales tax. What consequently follows is that the exemption granted by the Government was only by way of concession. Once this position emerges it goes without saying that a concession can be withdrawn at any time and no time limit can be insisted upon before the concession is withdrawn. The notifications of the Government clearly manifest that the State Government had earlier granted the exemption only by way of concession and subsequently by means of the revised notification issued on July 17, 1971, the concession had been withdrawn. As the State Government was under no obligation, in any manner known to law, to grant exemption it was fully within its powers to revoke the exemption by means of a subsequent notification.” 23. The Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Assessing Authority and others, (1992) 2 SCC 683 , held that if the exemption notification does not contain a stipulation as to how long the exemption would remain in operation, it would be open to the Government to withdraw the same at a later point of time. 24. The Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Assessing Authority and others, (1992) 2 SCC 683 , held that if the exemption notification does not contain a stipulation as to how long the exemption would remain in operation, it would be open to the Government to withdraw the same at a later point of time. 24. Exemption given by the Government under Section 4 of the HR & CE Act cannot be treated as a concession given under the Sales Tax Act or power subsidy, to encourage industries to come up for the development of State. In case the State gives concession in the form of incentives, to attract industrialists and on the basis of such promise, industries were established by altering the position, the same would be a reason to challenge the cancellation of exemption on the ground of promissory estoppel. However, no such element of promissory estoppel is present in the present case. 25. The petitioner has no case that the Government has given assurance that the temple would be given exemption and on that basis, the trust was made to construct the temple. There was no promise from the Government before constructing the temple that the provisions of the Act would not be made applicable to the temple. The petitioner constructed the temple and only after a period of ten years, application was submitted before the Government, requesting exemption. The exemption was not limited to a particular period and as such, the Government was well within its powers to withdraw the exemption at a later point of time on justifiable reasons. 26. The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. UEE Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2100 : (2004) 11 SCC 213, indicated the scope of judicial review in the following words :- “12. Courts are slow to interfere in matters relating to administrative functions unless decision is tainted by any vulnerability such as lack of fairness in procedure, illegality and irrationality. Whether action falls within any of the categories has to be established. Mere assertion in that regard would not be sufficient. 13.... 14. The law is settled that in considering challenge to administrative decisions courts will not interfere as if they are sitting in appeal over the decision.” 27. Whether action falls within any of the categories has to be established. Mere assertion in that regard would not be sufficient. 13.... 14. The law is settled that in considering challenge to administrative decisions courts will not interfere as if they are sitting in appeal over the decision.” 27. The Government at no point of time assured the petitioner that the exemption was given only to the trust and the entire income generated by the temple could be appropriated for the activities of the trust. The orders exempting the petitioner from the provisions of the Act were very specific that only the temple was exempted from such provisions and not the trust. The use of words “temple run by the trust” would not make any difference. The factum of indicating the name of the trust as the organization running the temple would not give a right to the trust to claim the benefits of exemption granted to the temple under Section 4 of the HR & CE Act. The petitioner was under a misconception that the benefit of exemption given to the temple would enure to the benefit of trust. 28. The petitioner very clearly admitted that the temple was not maintaining accounts in respect of the income collected from the pilgrims. The receipts were issued only by the Trust. In short, the donations given by the devotees and the amount paid by them to do various Archanas were all diverted to the trust. The trust is not under the purview of the HR & CE Department. Since the petitioner has very clearly admitted the diversion of funds from the temple to the trust, the Government was fully justified in passing the impugned order. Disposition :- 29. The Government have given cogent reasons for withdrawing the exemptions given to the temple. The order passed by the Government, cannot be characterized as illegal, irrational or suffers from procedural impropriety. 30. In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.