ORDER : In W.P.Nos. 12959/2017 and 17921/2018, Mr. P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. In W.P.No.12959/2017, Mr. Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mrs. H.C.Kavitha, learned HCGP for respondents 1 and 3. Mrs. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. B. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Mrs. K.P. Yashodha, learned counsel for respondent No.5. In W.P.No.17291/2018, Mr. Santhosh S. Nagarale, learned counsel for respondent No.4 2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. In W.P.No.12959/2017, the petitioner seeks for quashing of communication dated 14.03.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, namely the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka, whereas in W.P.No.17921/2018, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 19.02.2017 submitted by the petitioner and to record the name of the petitioner as hereditary trustee of the Kateel Durgaparameshwari Temple. 4. The facts giving raise to filing of the present writ petitions briefly stated are: That the petitioner claims to be the hereditary trustee of the 5th respondent – Sree Durgaparameshwari Temple (hereinafter referred to as “the temple” for short) from Kodethur Guthu family. Admittedly, the temple was governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1926 and later on by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and now the same is governed by the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). According to the petitioner, the temple is managed by two hereditary trustees one from Kodethur Guthu family and another from Kateel Asranna family. It is averred in the writ petition that on 19.11.1956, on the death of Sri Lakshminarayana Asranna, the then hereditary trustee from Kateel Asranna family, vacancy occurred and according to the line of succession, his eldest son Sri Gopalakrishna Asranna entered office. On 11.03.1950, on the death of Sri Sridhar Shetty, necessity arose for the Commissioner to name a fit person to succeed to the office from the Kodethur Guthu family due to reluctance of the next in line of succession to take charge. 5. On dispute having arisen, the Commissioner by order dated 12.05.2011 rejected the claim of Dr. Jayaram Alva and recognized Dr. Ravindranath Punja as hereditary trustee. On 02.02.2017 Dr. 5. On dispute having arisen, the Commissioner by order dated 12.05.2011 rejected the claim of Dr. Jayaram Alva and recognized Dr. Ravindranath Punja as hereditary trustee. On 02.02.2017 Dr. Ravindranath Punja, the hereditary trustee died. It is averred in the writ petition that thereafter meetings of the trustees of the temple were convened and the petitioner entered the office of the hereditary trustee from Kodethur Guthu family on 19.02.2017. The 4th respondent on 03.03.2017 submitted a representation to the Commissioner stating that one of the trustees of the temple has died and therefore suitable arrangement should be made to manage the affairs of the trust. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication, by communication dated 14.03.2017 1st which is impugned in this writ petition the respondent has directed the 3rd respondent to submit a proposal for appointment of an administrator till he declares successor to the deceased hereditary trustee, though there is no vacancy for the office of the hereditary trustee according to the petitioner at present. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to Section 29 of the Act submitted that sine qua non for exercising of power under Section 29 of the Act has to be fulfilled before an administrator can be appointed in respect of the temple in question. It is further submitted that in the instance case, the statutory conditions were not fulfilled before ordering for appointment of the administrator as the petitioner who is the hereditary trustee had already entered appearance. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the Commissioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 29 of the Act reads as under: 29. Appointment of Administrator: The Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the case may be shall appoint an officer of the State Government as Administrator in place of the Committee of management dissolved or suspended under subsection (1) or (3) of section 28 or after the expiry of the term of office of the Committee under section 26 or for any other reasons and till a new Committee of Management is constituted or for a period of six months whichever is earlier. Provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla Dharmika Parishat, by order extend the said period by any further period, not exceeding six months at a time. So however, the said period shall not exceed one year in total.” 10. If Section 29 of the Act as well as the complaint made by the 4th respondent is read, it is evident that the respondent No.4 has nowhere stated that the affairs of the temple are being mismanaged or its money has been misappropriated. In the resultant, it is evident that the condition precedent for appointment of an administrator has not been fulfilled. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. 11. At this stage it is stated at the bar that the petitioner had already filed an application under Section 20A(2)(vii) of the Act to record his name as hereditary trustee as the vacancy has arisen and the aforesaid application is pending before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat. 12. In view of the aforesaid submission, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Rajya Dharmika Parishat to pass a speaking order on the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 20A(2)(vii) of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 13. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.