JUDGMENT : P.V. Balakrishnan, J. The petitioner, Sree Maruthi Bhagavathi Temple, represented through its hereditary trustee, has filed the above writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “i) To call for the entire records culminating in Ext.P7 order and to quash the same; ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to accept the basic tax of the properties covered by Exhibits P1, P2, P3 & P4 along with arrears of basic tax from the petitioner.” 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the temple and its properties belonged to Rayiramkandath Tarward and are under the management of the petitioner as the hereditary trustee. The basic tax of the properties belonging to the temple were paid by the manager of the family from time to time. During 1996-97, some disputes occurred in respect of the rights of the property and the management of the temple and the basic tax could not be paid for few years. Subsequently, when the 3 rd respondent refused to accept the basic tax, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 application dated 20.02.2017 before the 3 rd respondent requesting to accept the basic tax of the properties. Since the respondent kept idle, the petitioner preferred W.P(C) No.19987 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.01.2018 directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a time frame. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent rejected the request as per Ext.P7 order dated 12.07.2018 stating that unless an Administrative Officer is appointed for the temple by Malabar Devaswom Board, the land tax cannot be accepted from the hereditary trustee. It was also stated that the temple and its properties have been taken over by the HR & CE, Department as per the order in O.A.No.18 of 1983 dated 04.12.1985 (Ext.P9). O.A.No.18 of 1983 was only a proceeding in which the temple was declared as a public temple and in the order it is specifically recorded that the properties of the temple are in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession of the properties as the hereditary trustee and the Devaswom Board has no right/title over the properties of the religious institution. 3. The 6 th respondent filed a counter affidavit challenging the entitlement of the petitioner to remit the basic tax. The petitioner is in possession of the properties as the hereditary trustee and the Devaswom Board has no right/title over the properties of the religious institution. 3. The 6 th respondent filed a counter affidavit challenging the entitlement of the petitioner to remit the basic tax. It is contended that the trusteeship of the temple is vested with Kuthira- vattom Swaroopam and since they found it difficult to manage the affairs of the temple, a committee comprising of the devotees and elected from among them was constituted. The members of Rayiramkandath family, to which the petitioner belongs, is only having some customary rights in the temple. In the order passed in O.A.No.18 of 1983, it is clearly stated that the petitioner will have to establish his right as hereditary trustee by preferring appropriate proceedings, which he has not done. The day today affairs of the temple are being controlled by the Committee with the prior permission of the Malabar Devaswom Board and neither the petitioner nor any other members of his family have taken any interest in the affairs of the temple. The petitioner’s name do not find a place in the Adangal extract and the petitioner is trying to establish title over the property without resorting to a civil suit. 4. The 5 th respondent filed a statement dated 22.10.2019, wherein, it is contended as follows: “2. It is submitted that the petitioner temple is a religious institution coming under the purview of HR & CE Act,1951, consequently under the supervisory control of Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition earlier, as W.P.( C) No.7369 of 2019, apprehending the appointment of Non-Hereditary Trustees behind the back of the Hereditary Trustees. The Hon’ble Court without expressing on the merits of the claim mooted by the petitioner, for the hereditary trusteeship, disposed off the writ petition, vide judgment dated 18.03.2019, leaving the opportunity to the petitioner, to raise the claim of Hereditary Trusteeship before the competent authorities in accordance with law. So much so, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, to decide the right for hereditary trusteeship of the temple, in accordance with the HR & CE Act, 1951. Section 57(b) of the Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to inquire into and decide the matters regarding whether a trustee hold or held office of the temple hereditary trustee. 3. Section 57(b) of the Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to inquire into and decide the matters regarding whether a trustee hold or held office of the temple hereditary trustee. 3. The petitioner Temple is a public religious institution brought under the purview of the Act under Section 57(a) of the Act. It was contended by the Malabar Devaswom Board in W.P.(C)No.7369 of 2019 that the partition deed which was produced in the said writ does not indicate that the petitioner is a Hereditary Trustee as defined under the Act. The Trustee of a religious institution is clearly defined in the Act that one who got it, by succession, to whose office it devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage, or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession in force. Hence, the Hereditary Trusteeship of the temple has not yet been regulated by any enquiry or order. It is to be decided by acting under Section 57(b) of the Act and hence a notice Vide No.A1-714/14/M.D.B. dated 05/09/2019 has been issued under Section 57(b) by the Deputy Commissioner inviting objections or opinions from devotees, in regard of appointment of the petitioner as hereditary trustee of the temple. In response of the notice, some objections was received from certain corners against his claim for Trusteeship. The petitioner has produced a consent letter from one Sri. R. Sukumaran Nair who had claimed himself as the de-facto Hereditary Trustee after Sri. Janardhanan Nair, the former trustee as claimed in the letter who passes the age of 90, authorizing the Trusteeship to the petitioner. In the said letter, it states that the petitioner is the son of younger sister of Sri. Sukumaran Nair. So the veracity of lineage also to be verified recordically on proceeding with Section 57(b), so as to avoid further unnecessary litigation in regard of Hereditary right. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the proceedings under Section 57(b) in deciding the right of the petitioner for Hereditary Trusteeship is progressing in this office. So, at this juncture, such a writ petition itself is irrelevant and unnecessary. So much so, no question arises as to impleading the petitioner in the impleading petition, Mr.Aravindan as additional 2 nd petitioner. Also, Sri. Janardhanan Nair, the said Hereditary Trustee expired on 23.12.2018, and not been approved as Trustee so far. So, at this juncture, such a writ petition itself is irrelevant and unnecessary. So much so, no question arises as to impleading the petitioner in the impleading petition, Mr.Aravindan as additional 2 nd petitioner. Also, Sri. Janardhanan Nair, the said Hereditary Trustee expired on 23.12.2018, and not been approved as Trustee so far. So, it is to be decided by conducting enquiry under Section 57 (b).” 5. During the pendency of this writ petition, Sri. Rayiramkandath Janardhanan Nair, who has filed this writ petition claiming as hereditary trustee of the temple, died on 24.12.2018 and the Power of Attorney holder Sri. Aravindan being the senior most male member of the Tarawad was impleaded as the hereditary trustee. Later, the said Aravindan also died on 24.12.2019 and as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 dated today, Sri. Rayiramkandath Karunakarankutty was impleaded as additional petitioner No.2 without prejudice to the rival contentions raised as to his eligibility of being a hereditary trustee. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, the Standing Counsel for respondents 5, 7 & 8 and the learned Counsel for the 6 th respondent. 7. As stated earlier, this writ petition has been filed for setting aside Ext.P7 order and for a direction to respondent No.3 to accept the basic tax of the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P4 documents. The petitioner claims to be the hereditary trustee of the temple, which is vehemently disputed by respondent Nos. 5 & 6. The statement filed by the 5 th respondent would go to show that the original petitioner (Janardhanan Nair) has already approached the Deputy Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board (8 th respondent) to decide the right for hereditary trusteeship of the temple in accordance with the HR & CE Act, 1951 and that the same is still pending consideration. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that the said proceedings, which is numbered as O.A.No.9 of 2019, is even now pending on the files of the 8 th respondent. It cannot be disputed that as per Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner is the authority to enquire into and decide whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee in a temple. It cannot be disputed that as per Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner is the authority to enquire into and decide whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee in a temple. Since O.A.No.9 of 2019 is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner (8 th respondent), we are of the view that the right of the petitioner to remit the basic tax will be dependent upon the result in it. If, in any case, the petitioner is found to be hereditary trustee of Sree Maruthi Bhagavathi Temple, it would be obligatory upon the 3 rd respondent to accept the basic tax for the temple properties along with arrears from the petitioner. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion, on the claims made by the petitioner and the contesting respondents in this writ petition, and the Deputy Commissioner (8 th respondent) shall decide O.A.No.9 of 2019 untrammeled by any observations made in the judgment.