JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Judge in a writ petition filed by the appellants herein, questioning the correctness of an order passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Heard Ms. J. Anandhavalli, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. F. Deepak, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. A public Trust was created way back in 1898 by a lady resident of a street known as Vadugakavalkooda Street, Madurai. The object of the Trust was to render services in the Mandapam on the northern bank of river Vaigai when Lord Kallazhagar used to arrive there on the occasion of Chitra Pournami Festival every year. The Mandagapadi was to be performed in the said Mandapam called 'Naidu Mandapam @ Ammalammal Mandapam'. 3. A scheme was framed in O.S. No. 4. of 1914 for the due administration of the said Trust. As per the scheme, the Board of Management of the Trust used to be constituted from time to time. 4. In the year 2009, a set of five persons were appointed as the members of the Board of Management. The method of appointment stipulated in the scheme decree was that from out of the residents belonging to Naidu community who reside in the aforementioned street and who were also the relatives of the founder of the Trust, ten persons are to be elected. From the panel of ten names selected by the community at large, the Commissioner had to select five persons and appoint as trustees. A set of trustees appointed in 2009, continued in office till 11.11.2011. 5. Since no election was held from among the residents thereafter, the Joint Commissioner appointed a Fit Person by an order dated 17.06.2013. The said order was challenged by the fourth respondent herein who was the then Managing Trustee in a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 10172 of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 10.07.2014. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 10172 of 2013, reads as follows: "6. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 10.07.2014. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 10172 of 2013, reads as follows: "6. In such view of the matter, since the impugned order has remained stayed for one year, the status quo prevailing as on date, shall be continued for a period of six weeks. Within such time, the first respondent shall finalise the electoral roll and conduct election so as to elect new board of trustees. It is made clear that the petitioner as well as the impleaded respondents namely respondents 3 and 4 shall cooperate in the conduct of the election. That apart the persons whose names, have been placed in the electoral roll also should cooperate in the conduct of the election. Since, the petitioner and other trustees have been continued by virtue of the interim order, it has been extended till the elections are conducted and the trustees shall not take any policy decision with regard to the administration of the trust and its properties and shall preserve the same in as is where is condition. It is also made clear that this Court has not gone into the rights or claim made by the respondents 3 and 4 in this writ petition." 6. It is relevant to note that two persons by name, N. Mohan @ Mohanram and one C. Chandramohan got impleaded in W.P.(MD) No. 10172 of 2013. Therefore, these two persons were parties to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2014 directing the conduct of the election. 7. However the said C. Chandramohan later came up with two writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 13389 and 13390 of 2014, challenging in the first writ petition, the election notification issued on 22.07.2014 pursuant to the order passed in the first writ petition and seeking in the second writ petition a Mandamus to consider his representation. 8. In the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 13390 of 2014, the said Chandramohan impleaded three persons namely, (i) V. Pandurangan, who is the rival party in this writ appeal, (ii) N. Mohan @ Mohanram and (iii) V. Venkatesan. 9. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a learned Judge by a common order dated 18.08.2014. 8. In the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 13390 of 2014, the said Chandramohan impleaded three persons namely, (i) V. Pandurangan, who is the rival party in this writ appeal, (ii) N. Mohan @ Mohanram and (iii) V. Venkatesan. 9. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a learned Judge by a common order dated 18.08.2014. In the said writ petitions, specific allegations were made by C. Chandramohan, writ petitioner, to the effect that the nominations of N. Mohan @ Mohanram and V. Venkatesan who were respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(MD) No. 13390 of 2014, were liable to be rejected. 10. However, by an order dated 18.08.2014, the learned Judge dismissed both the writ petitions of C. Chandramohan. Incidentally, the learned Judge dealt with the question of disqualification of N. Mohan @ Mohanram and V. Venkatesan in paragraph 7 of his order which reads as follows: "7. Insofar as the nominations of Mr. N. Mohan and Mr. V. Venkatesan are concerned, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that they are the residents of the said street and ration cards, voters identity cards and certificates from the Village Administrative Officer have been produced. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the electoral roll has been published, the petitioner has also signed the same and his name finds place in Serial No. 81, which is evident from the copy of the electoral roll published. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner as regards the nominations made by Mr. N. Mohan and Mr. V Venkatesan cannot be accepted and question of issuing a direction to consider the representation after the election process has commenced does not arise." 11. Thereafter, the fourth respondent in this writ appeal, submitted a letter of objections dated 18.08.2014. His objections were as against the nominations of three persons, namely, N. Mohanram, V. Venkatesan and Vasudevan. The fourth respondent herein claimed in his letter dated 18.08.2014 that all these three persons namely, N. Mohanram, V. Venkatesan and Vasudevan are disqualified, as they were not the residents of the street namely, Vadugakavalkooda Street, Madurai. 12. When the letter of objections was pending, the Joint Commissioner held elections and declared the appellants herein as persons to be appointed as Trustees. 13. 12. When the letter of objections was pending, the Joint Commissioner held elections and declared the appellants herein as persons to be appointed as Trustees. 13. In the meantime, the fourth respondent herein also filed a revision under Section 21of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, objecting to the election notification dated 12.08.2014. By an order dated 10.10.2014, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, held that the revision under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable as against a mere election notification. However, the Commissioner also stated that since ten persons have already been short-listed by the Trust from the community, the competent authority can select five qualified persons from among those short-listed by the community. Accordingly, the Commissioner passed an order dated 10.10.2014, on the revision filed by the fourth respondent. Paragraph 9 of the order reads as follows: "Further, the petitioner and others have also filed objections regarding qualification of respondents 3, 5 and 6 who have filed nomination for such appointment. Therefore, it is up to the competent authority to consider the said objections as per the scheme provisions and the Act. Hence, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Dept., Madurai is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry on the applications, filed by the 10 persons and the objections of the petitioners and others in the light of Section 26 of the Act and take steps to appoint non-hereditary trustees in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and Section 47 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. With the above directions, the Revision Petition is disposed of." 14. However, on the same date on which the Commissioner disposed of the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent namely 10.10.2014, the Joint Commissioner appointed the appellants herein as the Trustees of the Trust. 15. Faced with two orders, one from the Joint Commissioner appointing them as Trustees and another from the Commissioner on the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent directing the competent authority to examine the qualifications of all ten short listed candidates, the appellants came up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 18881 of 2014. Their objection was that after appointment, the question of going into their qualifications would not arise, especially, on an order passed in a revision that was not maintainable. 16. Their objection was that after appointment, the question of going into their qualifications would not arise, especially, on an order passed in a revision that was not maintainable. 16. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition, by an order dated 30.04.2015, holding that the revision filed by the fourth respondent was unsustainable. But the learned Judge gave liberty to the writ petitioners who are the appellants herein to approach the appellate authority under Section 114 of the Act. 17. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge virtually demolished the case of the fourth respondent by his order dated 30.04.2015 and the fourth respondent has not chosen to file an appeal. This can be appreciated by making a reference to paragraph 13 of the order of the learned Judge which reads as follows: "13. In the light of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the fourth respondent filed the above revision petition before the first respondent questioning the nominations of six persons, only after the order passed by this Court in the above writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 13389 and 13390 of 2014, on 18.08.2014 and this Court has categorically given a finding to the effect that the allegation of the fourth respondent regarding the nominations cannot be accepted and therefore, rejected the same. In such an event, it is not for the fourth respondent to indulge in litigative battle in order to make hurdles to the smooth running of the Trust in one way or the other. Admittedly, the fourth respondent did not test the order of this Court in the writ appeal. Therefore, this Court finds that the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent is unsustainable. The first respondent has rightly found that the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent is not maintainable. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved over the directions issued by the first respondent in the revision petition, it is open to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal as per law." 18. The only objection of the appellants to the order of the learned Judge is that the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, passed on a revision which was not maintainable and passed without taking note of the elections already held is unsustainable in law. 19. However it is contended by Mr. The only objection of the appellants to the order of the learned Judge is that the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, passed on a revision which was not maintainable and passed without taking note of the elections already held is unsustainable in law. 19. However it is contended by Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent that as per the scheme decree, only those who are residents of a particular street, who belonged to Naidu community and who are also related to the founder of the Trust are entitled to be appointed as Trustees. According to the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, at least, three appellants herein do not satisfy the residence qualification stipulated in the scheme decree. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that the question of disqualification which was never gone into by the Joint Commissioner who is the competent authority was rightly directed to be gone into by the Commissioner. 20. We have carefully examined the rival contentions. As pointed above, the objections of the fourth respondent are to the appointment of three out of five appellants herein. The only objection is with regard to the residence qualification. But out of those three persons against whom the fourth respondent filed the objections, this Court has already cleared the objections with regard to two of them namely, N. Mohan @ Mohanram and V. Venkatesan. We have already extracted paragraph 7 of the learned Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos. 13389 and 13390 of 2014, dated 18.08.2014, where this Court specifically overruled the objections relating to the candidature of N. Mohan @ Mohanram and V. Venkatesan. Hence it is not open to the fourth respondent to object to their nominations once again. 21. Though it is contended by Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent that the observations found in paragraph 7 of the order of the learned Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos. 13389 and 13390 of 2014, were not binding on him, those observations were certainly binding on the Joint Commissioner who was a party to the writ petition. 21. Though it is contended by Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent that the observations found in paragraph 7 of the order of the learned Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos. 13389 and 13390 of 2014, were not binding on him, those observations were certainly binding on the Joint Commissioner who was a party to the writ petition. Now if we allow the Joint Commissioner by virtue of the order passed by the Commissioner on the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent, to go into the question of disqualification of N. Mohan @ Mohanram and V. Venkatesan, the Joint Commissioner will be helpless as he is bound by the order of the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. 22. As a consequence, the objections relating to Vasudevan alone now survive. The objection as we have stated earlier is with regard to the residential qualifications. But we do not think that it is of such a serious nature that at this stage an enquiry should be gone into. 23. The fourth respondent herein was appointed in the year 2009. The next election and appointment happened only in 2014. The first appellate has now got a chance to serve the Trust in the same efficient manner as the fourth respondent has done in the past. 24. The tenure of office is two years. Therefore, considering the nature of the objections made, we do not wish to allow an enquiry at least insofar as the present election is concerned, to take place. The appellants have assumed office and have been functioning for the past one year. It is their positive case that they are residents of the same street. In the light of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is modified to the effect that the order of the Commissioner dated 10.10.2014 passed in the writ petition shall stand set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.