Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, for setting aside the order of the appointment of a fit person by the first respondent dated 18.11.2011 as illegal and unsustainable. 2. Few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows: The appointment of the fit person made under the impugned order is for the temple known as Arulmigh Azhakiya Nachiamman Thirukoil at Manojiyappa Chavadi, Ayyampettai, Papanasam Taluk, which is not a notified temple under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter shortly referred to as H.R & C.E. Act). The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, challenging such appointment of the fit person, by claiming himself to be the hereditary trustee of the temple on the strength of the findings rendered in AS.141 of 1973 by the Sub Court, Thanjavur, arising out of O.S.155/1969 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru. 3. The suit in O.S.No.155/1969 was filed by the temple in question represented by its hereditary trustee by name Rathinam Poosari for redemption of an Othie dated 5.2.1917 executed by one Kandasami Poosari in favour of Kailasam Pillai. Since Kailasam Pillai and his son died, the wife of his son by name Lakshmi Ammal was arrayed as the first defendant and the petitioner's father Prathapa Krishnaswami Naicker and one Kanniah Pillai were also impleaded as the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. In the suit for redemption, the claim of the plaintiff was seriously contested by the defendants 2 and 3, by denying the trusteeship of the plaintiff and by setting up hereditary trusteeship of the plaintiff upon his forefather and upon the father. The father of the petitioner as the second defendant claimed possession and enjoyment of the suit property belonging to the temple. After filing the written statement, the petitioner's father died and his sons including that of the petitioner herein were brought on record as the defendants 4 to 7. The suit was after contest, dismissed on the ground that the other deed was not a valid document and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief of redemption. While doing so, the trial court directed the parties to establish their claim of hereditary trusteeship before the Deputy Commissioner under section 63(b) of HR & CE Act. The suit was after contest, dismissed on the ground that the other deed was not a valid document and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief of redemption. While doing so, the trial court directed the parties to establish their claim of hereditary trusteeship before the Deputy Commissioner under section 63(b) of HR & CE Act. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff preferred AS.No.94 of 1973, before the District Court, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as AS.141 of 1973, on the file of the Sub Court, Thanjavur. The appeal suit was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. However, the first appellate court has gone into the dispute regarding hereditary trusteeship and decided that the second defendant was the trustee/hereditary trustee of the temple and the plaintiff was only a poosari and not a hereditary trustee as such, he was not entitled to the claim of redemption. 4. Admittedly, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court was not taken up by way of second appeal. Pending first appeal, the plaintiff Rathinam Poosari also approached the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE (Administration) department, Thanjavur, who is the competent authority for declaring the temple in question as religious institution and for deciding the hereditary trusteeship by way of O.A.No.151 of 1973, which was decided by the proceedings dated 12.11.1974, thereby Rathinam Poosari was held as hereditary trustee of the temple. While so, the villagers intended to renovate the temple, which was severely damaged and one T.R.Ekanathan, Retired Canara Bank General Manager along with 12 others made a representation dated 9.5.2011 to the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. On receipt of the same, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai, by letter dated 8.6.2011, directed the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Thanjavur to prepare necessary estimate and to grant permission to carry on the renovation work. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner herein sent a letter to the Deputy commissioner to extend his co-operation for the temple renovation without prejudice to his right as hereditary trustee. The renovation work was started and was being carried on with the help of donationss given by the individuals under the supervision of T.R.Ekanathan and under the guidance of the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE. The renovation work was started and was being carried on with the help of donationss given by the individuals under the supervision of T.R.Ekanathan and under the guidance of the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE. In the mean while, the Joint Commissioner H.R &C.E, Thanjavur received the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.07.2011 to the effect that the renovation work could not be carried on by reason of the dispute between two individuals regarding hereditary trusteeship and neither of the descendants of the rival claimants have taken any steps to maintain the temple and to do thirupani for more than 50 years and the temple and its properties are not properly maintained. The Joint Commissioner on receipt of such report has in his proceedings dated 18.11.2011 appointed the 2nd respondent/Executive officer of neighbouring temple as 3rd respondent/fit person for the subject temple. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order appointing the fit person mainly on the strength of the findings rendered in AS.No.141 of 1973, arising out of O.S.No.155/1969. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of hereditary trusteeship was already decided by the competent civil court and when such order the same is in force and when he continues to be the hereditary trustee of the temple, the appointment of the fit person is made to defeat the lawful right of the petitioner and his family members and is ill-motivated and tainted with malafide. 6. The relief sought for in this writ petition is seriously opposed, not only by the second respondent Executive Officer and the third respondent in his capacity as fit person of the subject temple, but also by the fourth respondent Purushothaman Poosari, who is none else than the grandson of Rathinam Poosari through his son Sambantham. While the respondents 2 and 3 have opposed the relief mainly by taking recourse to the impugned order, the fourth respondent has intervened on the strength of the order passed in favour of Rathinam Poosari in O.A.No.151 of 1973. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 8. While the respondents 2 and 3 have opposed the relief mainly by taking recourse to the impugned order, the fourth respondent has intervened on the strength of the order passed in favour of Rathinam Poosari in O.A.No.151 of 1973. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 8. Here is the case, wherein there are two orders in favour of two individuals in respect of the hereditary trusteeship of the temple in question i.e., one by the civil court and other by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the competent authority to decide the hereditary trusteeship under the relevant provisions of the H.R & C.E. Act. As far as the findings rendered by the civil court is concerned, the trial court declined to go into the question of hereditary trusteeship for want of jurisdiction, but, the dispute regarding the claim of hereditary trusteeship was gone into and decided by the lower appellate authority. On the other hand, the order declaring hereditary trusteeship in favour of Rathinam Poosari, who is the ancestor of the fourth respondent i.e. Purushothaman Poosari was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the HR&CE Act in this regard. It is but relevant to mention at this juncture that the civil court finding regarding the hereditary trusteeship was made in favour of the petitioner's father Prathaba Krishnaswami Naicker, who was arrayed as the second defendant in the suit. The petitioner has claimed herein that after the death of Prathaba Krishnaswami Naicker his other sons also passed away and the petitioner herein, being his last son, succeeded to the hereditary trusteeship by way of succession and he continues to be the hereditary trusteeship till date. However, except the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, no other document is produced herein that either the elder brothers of the petitioner or the petitioner herein had been carrying on any activity in the temple in such capacity as hereditary trustee. 9. On the other hand, the fourth respondent produced the proceedings of the Joint commissioner of H.R&CE (Administration) Department to show that Sambantham, who is the son of Rathinam Poosari and the father of the fourth respondent herein, acted as hereditary trustee of the subject temple. 9. On the other hand, the fourth respondent produced the proceedings of the Joint commissioner of H.R&CE (Administration) Department to show that Sambantham, who is the son of Rathinam Poosari and the father of the fourth respondent herein, acted as hereditary trustee of the subject temple. While the first document is from the office of the Inspector, HR&CE, Thiruvaiyaur relating to faslies 1400 and 1401, the second document is the proceedings dated 25.4.1995 of the Assistant Commissioner, HR& CE, Thanjavur addressed to the Manager, City Union Bank, Ayyampet, Papanasam for allowing R.Sambantham as hereditary trustee to operate the bank account of the temple. The other documents produced are the kist receipts dated 27.7.1995 and 11.2.1998 issued in the name of Sambantham as hereditary trustee of the temple. 10. Be that as it may, this court is for the purpose of deciding the issue raised herein not inclined to place any importance on the findings rendered by the civil court and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE department in respect of the hereditary trusteeship for the following reasons. As far as the civil court order is concerned, the suit and appeal arising out of which was not one for declaring the right of hereditary trusteeship, but for redemption and the question of claim of hereditary trusteeship was incidentally decided in the same. The competent authority to decide the issue relating to hereditary trustee is the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE department under section 63(b) of the HR & CE Act. Any order passed by the Joint commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, is appealable under section 69 to the Commissioner and the Civil Suit is the next remedy under section 70 of the Act against the order passed by the Commissioner in the statutory appeal and the decree of the trial court is under section 70(2) is appealable before the High Court. If that is so, the lower appellate court i.e., Sub Court, Thanjavur is not the competent authority to decide the issue relating to hereditary trusteeship. 11. As far as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.151/1973 is concerned, the same need not be relied upon for not impleading the legal heirs of Prathaba Krishnaswami Naicker as respondents in the same. 11. As far as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.151/1973 is concerned, the same need not be relied upon for not impleading the legal heirs of Prathaba Krishnaswami Naicker as respondents in the same. As O.A was filed during the pendency of the appeal arising out of the civil suit, the plaintiff as the applicant before the Deputy Commissioner, ought to have impleaded other rival claimants for effectively deciding the issue by the competent authority. That being the legal and factual position, this court is inclined to direct the competent authority i.e., Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, to decide the issue relating to hereditary trusteeship in the presence of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Till then, this Court is of the considered view, the temple be headed by the fit person appointed by the first respondent herein. 12. At this juncture, the HR&CE officers and temple authorities and the fourth respondent would appeal to this court to pass appropriate orders for carrying on the temple renovation and Kumbabishekam of the temple which was not done for the past 50years. It is submitted herein that as major part of the renovation work has been completed with the help of individual donars, the same state of affairs may be allowed to continue till the completion of the renovation work and for performance of Kumbabishekam. The petitioner and other parties have also agreed to extend their co-operation without prejudice to their right to claim hereditary trusteeship in respect of the subject temple. 13. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, without challenging the appointment of the fit person before the appropriate authority, ought not to have approached this court for setting aside the appointment so made by the first respondent, in view of the law laid by the Division Bench of our High Court in the decision reported in 2011-5-LW.798 (P.Shankar & others v. the Advocate General, High Court, Madras), to the effect that any person aggrieved by the order of appointment of Fit person, ought to have worked out his remedy before the competent authority of HR & CE Department and propriety of the same cannot be gone into by this court. Notwithstanding the same, this Court deems it fit to pass appropriate direction for completing renovation of the temple and for conducting Kumbabishekam. 14. Notwithstanding the same, this Court deems it fit to pass appropriate direction for completing renovation of the temple and for conducting Kumbabishekam. 14. Under such circumstances, this court directs the first respondent/Joint Commissioner, HR&CE department, Thanjavur District to constitute a Thirupani Committee consisting of (i) Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Thanjavur, (ii) Inspector, HR&CE Papanasam, (iii) Tahsildar of the concerned village (iv) fit person of the subject temple/third respondent (v) Prathaba K.Govindaraj Naicker/petitioner herein (vi) Purushothaman Poosari/fourth respondent herein. (vii) T.R.Ekanathan, Retired Canara Bank Manager, 143, Salai Street, Ayyampet, Salem. (viii) Parthasarathy, Superintending Engineer, Highways, Ayyampet. (ix) K.V.Krishnamurthy, President, Town Panchayat, Ayyampet (x) Balasubramanian, Retd. Teacher; and (xi) K.S.Soundarajan, Dinesh Silks, Ayyampet; to complete the Thirupani work and thereafter to grant permission to hold Kumbabishekam of the temple in question in any one of the auspicious days within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Joint Commissioner is also directed to hold appropriate enquiry in the matter of hereditary trustee and pass appropriate orders as per law and after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties concerned including the petitioner and fourth respondent herein. Till then, the fit person appointed by the first respondent is permitted to carry on the temple affairs in the manner known to law. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, MP No.2 of 2014 is ordered. MP Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 are closed.