JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.4021/2016/A1 dated 24.08.2020 and quash the same and consequently restrain the respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful administration of the temple, namely, Arulmighu Sree Kailasanathar Swamy Nithyakalyani Amman Temple, Ilayathangudi, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.) Heard the learned counsel on either side. With their consent, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal. 2. Arulmighu Sree Kailasanathar Samy Nithyakalyani Amman temple, Ilayathangudi, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, is a public temple and is one of the nine temples belonging to the nine sects of Nagarathar community. The said temple is a listed temple under Section 46(ii) of the HR & CE Act. The said temple is governed by the scheme framed by this High Court in its Judgment dated 01.12.1926 in A.S.No.72 of 1923. A 'Pulli' in the Nagarathar community refers to a married male member and also includes a widow as half 'Pulli'. The general body of the above temple shall consist of Pullis born in the family of the Nagarathars of the said sect (i.e.,) Ilayathangudi Nagarathar sect, which is one among the nine sects of Nagarathars. The said Ilayathangudi Nagarathars are yet again subdivided into seven subdivisions, namely,Okkurudayar, Pattanachaamiyar, Kalanivasalkuidyar, Perumaruthudayar, Kinkinikurudayar, Sirusenthurudayar and Perasenthuradayar. The religious institution as per the said scheme, shall be administered by the board of trustees comprising five trustees. Two of them shall be from the family of four Karaikarars and three of them shall be nominated by the competent authority (i.e.,) the first respondent herein. The three non- Karaikarar trustees shall not be from the family of Karaikarars and no two of them shall be from any one of the 7 subdivisions of the Nagarathar community. 3. The four karais are as follows:- i. T.RM.Vagai of Devakottai ii. RM.P.Vagai of O.Siruvayal iii. SV.M.Vagai of Karaikudi iv. V.S.Vagai of Kanadukathan All the three petitioners are presently functioning as trustees. The first petitioner represents SV.M. Vagai. The second petitioner represents RM.P.Vagai. The third petitioner represents T.RM. Vagai. The fourth respondent represents V.S.Vagai. 4. According to the petitioners, the term of the then non-Karaikarar trustees appointed by the competent authority came to an end on 11.06.2016. V.S.Vagai of Kanadukathan All the three petitioners are presently functioning as trustees. The first petitioner represents SV.M. Vagai. The second petitioner represents RM.P.Vagai. The third petitioner represents T.RM. Vagai. The fourth respondent represents V.S.Vagai. 4. According to the petitioners, the term of the then non-Karaikarar trustees appointed by the competent authority came to an end on 11.06.2016. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, vide proceedings dated 20.10.2016 appointed non-Karaikarar trustees, namely, RM.Vinaitheerthan, Muthupalaniappan and K.Rajasaminathan. The trust board was constituted and Kasi Chettiar was made as Chairman and the same was recorded vide proceedings dated 31.05.2017. Controversies arose and the status of the fourth respondent who represents V.S.Vagai was questioned. In this regard, the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, held an enquiry and submitted a report on 11.12.2017 to the effect that the fourth respondent is not entitled to represent V.S.Vagai. The issue is yet to be resolved. The petitioners are not able to have a working relationship with the fourth respondent. It is alleged that he is not attending the meetings of the trust board since 18.04.2018. As a result, the renovation works for the temple are not being taken up. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners received the impugned letter dated 24.08.2020 from the second respondent. The said communication is addressed to the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirupathur. It states that information has been received that on 17.08.2020 the executive committee met and in the said meeting, respondents 4 to 7 herein have been selected as Chairman from V.S.Vagai, Vice-Chairman from RM.P.Vagai and hereditary trustees from SV.M.Vagai and T.RM. Vagai respectively. The Inspector/the third respondent herein was called upon to send a report regarding their qualification as per the scheme governing administration of the temple. The petitioners challenge this communication as illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. Respondents 4 to 7 have filed their counter affidavits. They admit that the administration of the temple is governed by scheme framed by the High Court. As per the scheme, the temple should have four hereditary trustees and three non-hereditary trustees. The trust board shall have the right to administer the temple subject to such superintendence by the board of control. The board of trustees should comprise four Karaikarar trustees and three non-hereditary trustees nominated by the appropriate authority. As per the scheme, the temple should have four hereditary trustees and three non-hereditary trustees. The trust board shall have the right to administer the temple subject to such superintendence by the board of control. The board of trustees should comprise four Karaikarar trustees and three non-hereditary trustees nominated by the appropriate authority. The senior most male member of the eligible Karaikarar families shall be the representatives for the time being in the board of trustees. If he is ineligible or ceased to be a trustee by resignation or is removed, the next eligible senior member of the Karaikarar family shall be the members of the board. The private respondents specifically contended that none of the petitioners were appointed in terms of the scheme. In fact the competent authority has nowhere recorded the selection of the petitioners. The proceedings relied on by the writ petitioners are challenged as void ab-initio as they are violative of the scheme governing the temple. All the other contentions of the writ petitioners have been strongly controverted by the private respondents. The private respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The stand of the official respondents is that the communication impugned in the writ petition does not deserve to be interfered with. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. He took me through the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers. He contended that the impugned communication is patently lacking in jurisdiction. His core argument is that the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner will kick in only if vacancy has arisen in the office of hereditary trusteeship. The petitioners and the fourth respondent have been recognized as hereditary trustees of the institution in several proceedings. Thus no vacancy has arisen at all. The so-called meeting held on 17.08.2020 cannot be said to possess any legal validity. The second respondent had already come to a conclusion that the persons named in the impugned communication dated 24.08.2020 have been selected in the meeting held on 17.08.2020 and what remains is obtaining of report as regards their qualification. The moment the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirupathur, submits the report as regards their qualification, the petitioners would be automatically displaced from their position. The moment the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thirupathur, submits the report as regards their qualification, the petitioners would be automatically displaced from their position. The learned counsel drew my attention to Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and pointedly contended that the impugned order will have to go. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. They challenge the status of hereditary trusteeship claimed by the writ petitioners. When the matter was taken up for hearing the impleading application was filed. The intervenor however trained his guns only on the credentials of the fourth respondent. 9. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. 10. The issue raised in this writ petition can be easily answered by taking note of the relevant clauses in the scheme of administration laid down in A.S.No.72 of 1923 on 01.12.1926. Clauses II, III, IV and V read as follows : “II. Board of Trustees : - The Board of Trustees shall consist of five members, two Kariakars and three other trustees to be nominated by the Court. The four Kariakars representing the Kariakar families will be represented in the Board of Trustees alternately by two, ie., two in one year and the other two in another year. The nomination of the three non-Kariakar trustees by the Court shall be subject to two conditions namely (1) They shall not be nominated from among the Kariakar families and (2) no two of them shall be of any one of the 7 Sub-Divisions of the Nagarathar community. III. The trusteeship of the Devasthanam and endowments shall be vested in the Board of Trustees. The said Board shall have the right to administer the Devasthanam and its endowments subject to such superintendence by the Board of Control as is hereinafter provided. IV. No man shall be eligible to be a trustee or a member of the Board of Control of the said Elayathakudy Devasthanam. (a) who is not a “Pulli” competent to vote and belonging to any one of the seven Sub-Divisions of the Elayathakudy Koil Nagarathars. (b) who is under 25 or over 65 years of age. IV. No man shall be eligible to be a trustee or a member of the Board of Control of the said Elayathakudy Devasthanam. (a) who is not a “Pulli” competent to vote and belonging to any one of the seven Sub-Divisions of the Elayathakudy Koil Nagarathars. (b) who is under 25 or over 65 years of age. (c) who does not permanently reside within a radius of 30 miles from Elayathakudy or who does not undertake to ordinarily reside at such place during the period of his tenure of office. (d) who has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude or who has been found by a Court unfit to be a trustee or a member of the Board of Control of this or other Institutions of a similar kind. (e) who is an uncertificated bankrupt or undischarged insolvent or who has been committed to Civil Jail. (f) who is suffering from unsoundness of mind, total blindness, total deafness, dumbness, advanced leprosy or paralysis of such a nature as incapacitates him for the duties of a trustee or a member of the Board of Control. (g) who is a member of a joint family of which some other member is a trustee or a member of the Board of Control of this Devasthanam (h) who has embraced another faith. V. The senior most male members of the Kariakar families eligible under Regulation IV shall be their representatives for the time being in the Board of Trustees and in the Board of Control. If such senior member is ineligible or ceases to be a trustee by resignation or otherwise, or is removed from the office of Trusteeship, the next eligible senior member of the Kariakar family shall be its representative in the Board of Trustee or Board of Control.” Clause V is clear and categorical. It states that the senior most male members of the Kariakar families eligible under Regulation IV shall be their representatives for the time being in the Board of Trustees and in the Board of Control. I posed a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners herein can be characterized as the senior most male members of the respective Kariakar families. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not in a position to make a statement in this regard. I posed a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners herein can be characterized as the senior most male members of the respective Kariakar families. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not in a position to make a statement in this regard. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners claim that they were elected on certain dates following the vacancy created on account of the demise of the previous trustees. 11. The petitioners herein have not pleaded that they fulfil the threshold requirements set out in Regulation No.V of the scheme of administration framed by this Court. A person who is approaching the court will have to make out a prima facie case that he is having legal right. In the case on hand, the petitioners are unable to show that they fall within the four corners of the scheme. When the petitioners have not pleaded before this Court that they are the senior most members of the respective Karaikarar families, the question of entertaining this writ petition does not arise at all. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the contesting respondents including the learned Special Government Pleader, when a vacancy in the office of the hereditary trustee arose, the next in the line of succession must be recorded as trustee. This legal position is well settled. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the decision reported in (1990) 1 L.W 144 (Prem Anand vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras) held that when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. There is no necessity for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. But when a vacancy arises, the next in the line of succession has to formally get his name entered in the relevant records. The names of the petitioners were not entered in the relevant records at any point of time. 12. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioners have nowhere pleaded that they are the senior most male members of the respective Karai. The names of the petitioners were not entered in the relevant records at any point of time. 12. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioners have nowhere pleaded that they are the senior most male members of the respective Karai. They only claim that they were elected. When the scheme of administration is governing the field, the parties cannot on their own give a go-bye to the same. The rights of the petitioners will have to be predicated only on the terms of the scheme. The petitioners are unable to rest their case on the scheme requirements. No case has been made out for issuing writ as prayed for. 13. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.