ORDER The writ petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1479/2010/Aa1 dated 22.08.2015 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby, the first respondent has appointed a fit person to the Arulmigu Sozhia Maruthuva Mandagapadi Kattalai Trust and to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Arulmigu Sozhia Maruthuva Mandagapadi Kattalai Trust is situated at Meenachi Naicker Patti Village, Dindigul District. The trust and its members had filed O.A.No.5 of 1987 and 25 of 1989 for the purpose of framing a scheme on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE. A scheme has also been framed by an order dated 26.11.1993. As per the scheme, the trust and its properties shall be administered by the Board of Trustees consisting of members not exceeding 5 persons chosen by and among the descendants of 13 families of Sozhia Maruthuva Community and appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE, Madurai or appropriate authority, subject to the provisions of the new amended Act 46/1991 for a period of 3 years. Such trustees shall elect one among themselves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees as per the provisions of the new Act. As per the scheme, the trustees are administering the trust in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Even prior to the framing of the scheme, the trust was being managed by the members of Arulmigu Sozhia Maruthuvar Mandagapadi Trust. During the course of management, the members of the trust have purchased the lands having an extent of 1 acre and 21 cents by a registered sale deed dated 13.09.1945. As per the said sale deed, the property has been purchased out of the funds of the trust in the name of the Trust itself. On and from the date of purchase, the property is under the control and management of the trust. Similarly, the property comprised in Block No.3A, 43/1, 2 bearing door Nos. 106 and 107 were purchased by the trust out of its funds 80 years back. Moreover for proper administration and management, a trust deed was created on 05.09.1958 by regulating the mode of management and the same has also been amended by a deed dated 16.08.2010. Similarly, the property comprised in Block No.3A, 43/1, 2 bearing door Nos. 106 and 107 were purchased by the trust out of its funds 80 years back. Moreover for proper administration and management, a trust deed was created on 05.09.1958 by regulating the mode of management and the same has also been amended by a deed dated 16.08.2010. The trust is being managed and administered as per the scheme order dated 26.11.1993 in consonance with the above trust deeds. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has been elected as Chairman, Board of Trustees, in the Special Trust Board Meeting conducted on 25.03.2010. In the situation, the respondent herein issued a notice calling upon him to give due explanation with regard to demolition of the building vide Na.Ka.No.1479/2010/Aa(1) dated 25.01.2012, levelling four allegations against him, by impugned communication bearing Na.Ka.No.1479/2010/A1 dated 18.12.2014 on the strength of a note prepared on 25.01.2012. Questioning the proceedings of the respondent dated 18.12.2014, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.21439 of 2014 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 30.12.2014, granted an interim order. When the said order is in force, without conducting any enquiry, all of a sudden, the respondent issued the impugned order, vide order dated 12.08.2015. The said order is directly contrary to the order passed by this Court in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD).No.21439 of 2014. When this Court has specifically observed that if no order is passed, the enquiry can go on, however, final order shall be deferred till the pendency of the writ petition, but by violating the said order, the respondents have issued the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the said order. 4. On appearance, the first respondent, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Sozhia Maruthuva Mandagapadi Kattalai situated at Meenakchinaickenpatti, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District is a Hindu public Religious Institution under the administrative and supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administrative Department. As per the provisions available under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act, XXII of 1959), a confirmed scheme has been framed for administering the above institution by the then Deputy Commissioner of Madurai in his O.A.25/1989 C1 dated 26.11.1983. As per the provisions available under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act, XXII of 1959), a confirmed scheme has been framed for administering the above institution by the then Deputy Commissioner of Madurai in his O.A.25/1989 C1 dated 26.11.1983. As per the scheme, the following three persons including the writ petitioner were appointed as non-hereditary trustee by the 1st respondent in his Se.Mu.Na.Ka.1479/2010 Aa1 dated 09.03.2010, namely, i) Thiru.A.Sornavel, S/o. M.Arumugam ii) Thiru.M.Peria Pandian S/o.Mookkan iii) Thiru P.Alagar S/o.Ponniah. Among the three persons, the petitioner herein has been elected as the Chairman, Board of Trustees in the Special Trust Board Meeting convened on 25.03.2010. One of the trustees Thiru.M.Peria Pandian had expired on 22.05.2011. Since the period of trustee is two years as contemplated in the amended Act 2/2010, the tenure of the above trustees has ended on 24.03.2012 itself. Since the tenure of the trust board is over, the 1st respondent is empowered to make due arrangement for the temple management by appointing a fit person under Section 47 of the Act, during the interregnum period till the temple administration is duly taken over by the newly appointed trustees, as per the scheme. Whileso, the institution owns a building bearing T.S.No.43/1, 43/2 and door No.106 and 107 comprised in Ward No.1, Block No.3A and the same was demolished by the trustees without the knowledge of the respondent department, which is contrary to the Act and illegal. Hence, the first respondent, for the above mal-administration, called for an explanation, in his letter in Na.Ka.1479/2010 AA1(1) dated 25.01.2012 to the effect that why the scheme should not be cancelled and the trustee period should not be brought to the end and absolutely a fit person should not be appointed. Even after the lapse of more than two years, no reply was given by the petitioner herein. In the mean time, the period of the trust has come to an end. Thereafter, a reminder letter was sent to the petitioner herein, to submit his explanation before 25.12.2014, by the 1st respondent in his proceeding Na.Ka.1479/2010 AA1 dated 18.12.2014. The petitioner has challenged the said letter by means W.P.(MD).No.21439 of 2014 before this Court. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the 1st respondent to proceed with the enquiry and not to pass any final order. The petitioner has challenged the said letter by means W.P.(MD).No.21439 of 2014 before this Court. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the 1st respondent to proceed with the enquiry and not to pass any final order. The present proceedings dated 22.08.2015 is to appoint a fit person, pending constitution of Board of Trustees, after the period of trusteeship has come to an end. When the period is over, they cease to be trustees and are not entitled to any notice, as they are not in management. Insofar as the trust board is concerned, the period of trustees has automatically come to an end after the period of two years as per the Act 2/2010. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is valid. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The second respondent has also filed a detailed counter. 6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein has been elected as the Board of Trustee of Sozhia Maruthuva Mandagapadi Kattalai Trust on 25.03.2010. While he was continuing as Chairman of the Board of Trust, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to give an explanation regarding the demolition of a building and levelling certain allegations against the petitioner by a communication dated 18.12.2014. The said communication was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21439 of 2014. In the said writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an interim order in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 as follows: "If no orders are passed yet, the enquiry can go on and final orders shall be deferred during the pendency of the writ petition." When the said order was in force, the first respondent, without issuing any notice for conducting enquiry, now, passed the present impugned order, dated 22.08.2015, by appointing a fit person. Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is contra to the order of this Court dated 30.12.2014, passed in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 in W.P. (MD).No.21439 of 2014. Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is contra to the order of this Court dated 30.12.2014, passed in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 in W.P. (MD).No.21439 of 2014. According to the petitioner, when this Court has specifically observed that no final orders shall be passed till the disposal of the writ petition, violating the interim order passed by this Court, the present impugned order has been passed. 8. But, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that absolutely, there is no violation on the part of the respondents. According the learned counsel for the respondents, the Board of Trustees were appointed only for a period of two years commencing from 25.03.2010, which came to end on 24.03.2012. On the date of passing the impugned order, there was no Board of Trustees. Therefore, the question of issuing a notice for conducting enquiry, does not arise in this case. 9. Whereas, according to the petitioner, though the period is said to have come to an end on 24.03.2012, the petitioner is continuing as the Board of Trustee and he has not handed over the charge. Under such circumstances, the respondents ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and thereby ought to have conducted an enquiry before passing the impugned order. Since no notice was issued, the present order is in total violation to the principles of natural justice. Apart from that, order impugned is a violation of the order of this Court passed in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD).No.21439 of 2014. 10. Before analysing the submissions made on either side, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate to extract Sections 47(3) and 49(A) (2) of the Tamil Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, amended Act 12 of 2010. 47.Trustees and their number and term of offices: (3) Every trustee appointed under sub-section (1) and subject to the result of an application, if any, filed under sub-section (4), every non-hereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) shall hold office for a term of [two years], unless in the meanwhile the trustee is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by [the Government, the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner] as the case may be, or he otherwise ceased to be a trustee. [Provided that every trustee who has completed a tenure of office of one year as on 16th July 2006 shall cease to hold office forthwith and every trustee who completes a term of office of one year after such date shall cease to hold office on such completion.] [Provided further that every trustee who has not completed a term of office of one year on the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2010 shall continue to be the trustee for the period of two years from the date of his appointment.] [49-A. Existing trustees in the case of religious institutions first included in the list under Section 46 to cease to hold office:- (2) In respect of the religious institution mentioned in sub-section (1) [the Government, the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner as the case may be], shall constitute a Board of Trustees in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 47 and the trustees shall hold office for the term specified in sub-section (3) of the said Section 47.] Combine reading of the said provision would show that the Board of Trustees appointed by the Government, the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner shall hold office for the term specified in sub-section (3) of the said Section 47, namely for a period of two years. 11. In the instant case, the Board of Trustees were appointed on 25.03.2010, which came to an end on 24.03.2012. If that being so, after expiry of the said period, the petitioner and others will cease to act as trustees of the Board. In such circumstances, there is no need to give any notice for conducting enquiry for appointing a fit person. When there is no need to conduct enquiry, absolutely, I do not find any violation of the interim order passed by this Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.