JUDGMENT Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed in W.P(M)No.2980 of 2011. 2. The writ petitioners are the present hereditary trustees of Arulmigu Ayyanar Temple, Ponmeni at Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Simmakkal, Madurai. There were several allegations of mismanagement levelled against them. Pursuant to which the second appellant framed charges against them under Section 53 of the Hindu Religious and Chargeable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act') and an enquiry was contemplated. As an interim measure, the trustees were also placed under suspension and the third appellant was appointed as a fit person under Section 53(4) of the Act vide proceedings dated 07.02.2006. 3. A revision was preferred by the petitioners against the said order before the Commissioner of H R & CE Department who also confirmed the order dated 07.02.2006. The said proceedings were under challenge in the above writ petition which was allowed. 4. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is that the writ petitioners were suspended under Section 53 (4) of the Act and not under Section 53(2) of the Act which would have no application. The petitioners' right of the hereditary trusteeship was declared in O.A.No.40 of 1976. The temple itself was created by a grant which was confirmed in the year 1864 and the tenure of grant was permanent and tax free. The grant is a religious endowment which is in possession and enjoyment of the grantees/ descendents. Thus the hereditary trustees and their family members and descendants have been holding the office of the trusteeship of the temple hereditarily. There was an interference by a third party who had given a complaint to the authorities concerned against the trustees which triggered the impugned orders being passed on the charges of mismanagement. 5. The learned single Judge has held that a temporary vacancy has arisen in view of the suspension of the trustees and hence filling up of the vacancies can be done only under Section 54 (2) of the Act by the next in line of succession. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the suspension can only be done under Section 53(2) of the Act. 7. Section 53 of the Act deals with power to suspend, remove or dismiss the trustees. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the suspension can only be done under Section 53(2) of the Act. 7. Section 53 of the Act deals with power to suspend, remove or dismiss the trustees. Section 53(2) provides for the authority to suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee on various grounds including that if he fails to discharge the duties and perform the functions of a trustee in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder. 8. A perusal of the order dated 07.02.2006 which is a proceedings of the second appellant, a notice and suspension have been done under Section 53 (2). The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:- xxxxxxxxx 9. In the same order, additional charges were also framed against the trustees under Section 53(2) of the Act which are as follows:- xxxxxxxxx 10. As the suspension is done under Section 53 (2), invoking Section 53 (4), the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Ayyanar Temple, Ponmeni at Arulmigu Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Simmakkal, Madurai has been appointed as a fit person of the temple. The said order was taken on revision in R.P.No.22/2006-D2, wherein the Commissioner HR & CE confirmed the same on 01.02.2011 holding that there is no revision would lie against the interim order passed by the Joint Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that it is only Section 54 (2) which is applicable and therefore, when the hereditary trustees are suspended the next in line of succession shall be entitled and perform the functions of the trustee until his disability ceases. The said argument may not be correct. Section 54 only deals with filling up of vacancies in the office of hereditary trustee. The vacancy may be permanent or temporary. Whereas in the case on hand, the suspension is done under Section 53(2) of the Act. Section 53(4) provides for an appointment of fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the trustee pending disposal of the charges framed against the trustee as may be appointed by the appropriate authority. 12. Admittedly, in the case on hand, only charges were framed and enquiry is yet to go on. Section 53(4) provides for an appointment of fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the trustee pending disposal of the charges framed against the trustee as may be appointed by the appropriate authority. 12. Admittedly, in the case on hand, only charges were framed and enquiry is yet to go on. The order in the writ petition though had directed the authorities to appoint the next in line of succession among the writ petitioners or among the family of the founder as trustees, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, however, directed the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry into the charges framed against the respondents and pass an order within three months. 13. When Section 53 (4) specifically provides for the appointment of the fit person pending disposal of the charges framed, the appointment of the trustees from the line of succession shall not arise. The learned single Judge misdirected himself by applying the provisions of Section 54(2) instead of Section 53(4), either permanent vacancy or temporary caused on account of suspension under Section 53(2) will entitle the next person to succeed. The suspension in the instant case is only pending charges. In the event the writ petitioners come out clean out of the charges, it is always open to them to continue with their trusteeship. It is only in the interregnum, the fit person has been appointed to administer the temple. The power of appointment of a fit person under Section 53(4) is a special provision covering a specific contingency. 14. It is also contended that even if the respondents deserved to be suspended a stranger cannot be appointed as a fit person but it should be from the line of succession. In the instant case, all the seven trustees were suspended and the hereditary trustees forfeit their right to hold office. The moment they commit an act that take away the trust reposed in them. The appointment of fit person in the place of hereditary trustees is contemplated only as a temporary measure till such time, the enquiry is completed. A fit person is appointed ousting all the trustees from trusteeship only on the ground that all of them had committed irregularity thereby disqualifying the descendants. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 15. A fit person is appointed ousting all the trustees from trusteeship only on the ground that all of them had committed irregularity thereby disqualifying the descendants. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 15. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel pleaded that they are still in possession of the administration of the temple, and they may be permitted to continue the same till the enquiry is completed. 16. On verification, the learned Special Government Pleader states that though charge has been handed over to the fit person, the suspended trustees, namely, the respondents have not handed over the charge of the temple to him. However, the fit person is in partial administration of the temple and the suspended trustees claim to continue in the administration of the temple. 17. In view of the above, there will be a direction to the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry into the charges framed against the respondents and pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to co-operate in the early disposal of the enquiry proceedings. 18. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P(MD)No.2980 of 2011, dated 10.01.2017. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.3198 of 2017 is closed.