ORDER : 1. The challenge in the writ petition is to an order of appointment of non hereditary trustees to Arulmighu Pananthudaya Iyanar Thirukovil, Palaiyur Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.B.Muruganandam, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 5. 3. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petition mentioned temple is a non listed temple and the poojas have been performed by velar community. According to them, the fifth respondent and one another claiming to be a management and administration of the temple started to collect the money from the public for performance of the Kumbhaabisekam and had demolished the Kali temple and the compound wall without any authority. They had claimed themselves to be the self appointed trustees and that the temple belongs to Kattayandi vagayara and Silamban Kuruppan vagayara. The villagers convened a meeting and appointed 5 persons as Administrators, who administered the temple and had approached the authorities to appoint the above 5 persons as trustees to the temple, but however the request was turned down by the first respondent by his proceedings dated 11.08.2023 contending that the appointments could only be made on the recommendation of the District Committee. However, by proceedings dated 30.10.2023, the respondents 3 to 5 were appointed as non hereditary trustees by the first respondent on the basis of a resolution made by the District Committee. 4. He would submit that there has been no notification calling for applications from the interested persons for appointment of a non hereditary trustee. He would further submit that the persons appointed were also not eligible to be appointed. According to him, the fourth respondent is affiliated a political party and had also contested elections and presently is holding the post of Councilor. He would submit that the respondents 3 to 5 hail from the very same family and are close relatives. Hence, he would seek this Court to interfere with the orders of appointment of the respondents 3 to 5 as trustees to the temple. 5. He would also submit that Section 7A(4) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, mandates that the District Committee should prepare a panel of names of persons, who are qualified for appointment as trustees under the Act as prescribed. 5. He would also submit that Section 7A(4) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, mandates that the District Committee should prepare a panel of names of persons, who are qualified for appointment as trustees under the Act as prescribed. He would contend that no rules have been framed by the Government as to how the panel of names should be drawn by the District Committee. 6. The District Committee Rules, 2019, also do not prescribe the manner in which such panel should be drawn. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2023 4 MLJ 227 and contended that the persons to be appointed as trustees have to satisfy all the requirements as provided under the HR & CE Act and that the same should not be made on a political will and opportunity must be given to all devotees and the process of selection should be transparent. Relying upon the same, he would contend that there has been no publication of any notice calling for applications by the concerned authority and the selection process itself was not transparent, as the same would be evident from the fact that the respondents 3 to 5 are close family members. Hence, he would seek indulgence of this Court to set aside the order impugned. 7. Countering his arguments, Mr. P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the first respondent herein had issued a notice inviting applications for appointment of non hereditary trustees in his proceedings dated 26.06.2023. The said applications were thoroughly scrutinized and an enquiry report was also called for from the concerned Divisional Inspector. The Inspector had submitted his report on the said application on 10.08.2023 and thereafter, the names were placed before the District Committee on 19.10.2023 and by resolution even dated, the District Committee had recommended the names of the respondents 3 to 5 for appointment of non hereditary trustees. Based upon the District Committee's recommendation only, the respondents 3 to 5 have been appointed as non hereditary trustees to the temple. He would further submit that the fourth respondent herein had resigned from the trusteeship on 23.02.2024, as she was a Ward Councillor. He would also deny the fact that the respondents 3 to 5 are close relatives. 8. Based upon the District Committee's recommendation only, the respondents 3 to 5 have been appointed as non hereditary trustees to the temple. He would further submit that the fourth respondent herein had resigned from the trusteeship on 23.02.2024, as she was a Ward Councillor. He would also deny the fact that the respondents 3 to 5 are close relatives. 8. Mr.B.Muruganandam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 5 would submit that the writ petition at the outset itself is not maintainable, as the petitioners have got an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 21 of the HR & CE Act, 1959. He would submit that the temple was founded, established and managed by the trustees appointed by and from among the members of 2 vagayaras, namely, Kattayandi vagayara and Silamban Kuruppan vagayara from time immemorial. There are about 150 families for each of the vagayaras. Hence, renovation, Kumbhaabisekam of the temple, maintenance and poojas of the temple are being conducted only by the members of the said 2 Vagayara. From the date, when the temple was brought under the control of the HR & CE Department in the year 1981, the first respondent had been the authority, who have been appointing the trustees to the temple and such appointments have been made only from the said 2 vagayaras. 9. According to him, the respondents 3 and 4 represented the said 2 vagayaras and the fifth respondent belonged to SC community. He would further reiterate the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader that only pursuant to a notice issued by the first respondent, the private respondents herein had submitted their applications and after scrutiny of the eligibility, the District Committee had recommended their names and they have been appointed. The petitioners had been making false claims as if the procedures have not been followed and that if such procedures have been followed, the petitioners and other villagers would have also participated in the process of selection. For all these reasons, he would seek this Court to dismiss this writ petition. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. Admittedly, the temple is a non-ested temple. Section 49 of the Act empowers the first respondent herein to appoint trustees and Fit Persons in respect of such temple. For all these reasons, he would seek this Court to dismiss this writ petition. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. Admittedly, the temple is a non-ested temple. Section 49 of the Act empowers the first respondent herein to appoint trustees and Fit Persons in respect of such temple. It is the case of the petitioners that there has been no notification issued by the first respondent calling for any applications for appointment of the non hereditary trustees. On the contrary, it is the specific contention of the first respondent that by proceedings dated 26.06.2023, applications were called for as per Rules and pursuant thereto, 10 applications were received. It is the further case of the first respondent that the applications were scrutinized and placed before the District Committee and the District Committee had passed the resolution recommending the names of the respondents 3 to 5 for appointment. 12. A reading of Section 7A(4) of the Act would suggest that the District Committee concerned shall prepare in such a manner as may be prescribed a panel of names of persons, who are qualified for appointment as trustees under the Act and suitable for appointment as a non hereditary trustee or trustee as the case may be and shall forward the same to the Assistant Commissioner for appointment under Section 49 of the Act. But in the present case, applications were admittedly called for by the Assistant Commissioner and the applications received were scrutinized by the Divisional Inspector and based on the report submitted by the Divisional Inspector, the applications were placed before the District Committee. 13. As per the aforesaid provision, the duty of the District Committee is to evaluate the applications received and draw a panel of suitable candidates, who were qualified as per the provisions of the Act. The District Committee seems to have recommended 3 names for appointment and they were appointed as non hereditary trustees. Section 7A(4) of the Act do not prescribe the recommendation of names by the District Committee for appointment. It only envisages an authority with the District Committee to draw a panel of names suitable for appointment. This procedure has not been followed by the District Committee. On the said fact itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. It only envisages an authority with the District Committee to draw a panel of names suitable for appointment. This procedure has not been followed by the District Committee. On the said fact itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I am not inclined to venture upon the primordial submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as regards to the manner in which the District Committee have to draw the panel. The said issue is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 15. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to re-do the said exercise by calling for fresh applications and thereafter, forward such applications to the District Committee and it is for the District Committee to evaluate such applications and draw a panel of eligible and suitable persons as per the qualification prescribed under the Act. Once the panel is drawn and sent to the authority, it is for the authority to appoint the persons from the said panel. 16. In fine, the Writ Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.