ORDER : (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.) The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 21.03.2024, whereby, the 2nd respondent viz., the Inspector, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Thiruparankundram, Madurai, had called upon the petitioner to appear before him with relevant documents for enquiry, in relation to a scheme to be framed under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 , (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Brief facts: 2. The petitioner is a trustee of Arulmigu Sri Kalyana Vinayagar Thirukkoil situated at Pandiyan Nagar, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as "the Temple"). The Temple was founded and consecrated sometime in the year 1959. The Temple was founded by the members of Saiva Pillamar, Gowra Naidu, Yathavar, Nadar, Thondai Mandala Muthaliyar communities living at Pandiyan Nagar, Madurai. It is submitted that the members of the above five communities were functioning as Trustees of the Temple. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire residents of Pandiyan Nagar, recognised the members of the five communities as permitted rather entitled to manage/administer the Temple. It was further submitted that there has not been any interference by members of any other community, in the management of the Temple. The electricity service connection for the Temple stands in the name of the said Temple. An account has also been opened in a bank for depositing the income, if any, derived from the Temple. A poojari has been appointed for rendering pooja services in the Temple. Since the Temple does not have any income, the salary for poojari has been paid by the community members. The general public has a right to worship as a matter of right. 4. While so, the trustees, i.e., the members of the five communities referred supra, filed O.A.No.5 of 1995 under Section 64(1) of the Act, for framing a Scheme for the Temple. It may be relevant to note that Kumbabhishegam was performed sometime in the year 2014, at the instance of the community members. No donation was collected from the general public. 5. During the period 2014 to 2016, the deities of Vinayagar Sithi, Puthi, Navagraham, Nalli Devasena, Mehta Subramaniyar, Durgai Paramaeswar, lyyappan, Sri Bhuvaneswri Ambal Sannathi, Sri Kalyana Anjineyar, Tatchanamoorthy, Kalabairavar, Lakshmi Narayanar had been consecrated by the community members. No donation was collected from the general public. 5. During the period 2014 to 2016, the deities of Vinayagar Sithi, Puthi, Navagraham, Nalli Devasena, Mehta Subramaniyar, Durgai Paramaeswar, lyyappan, Sri Bhuvaneswri Ambal Sannathi, Sri Kalyana Anjineyar, Tatchanamoorthy, Kalabairavar, Lakshmi Narayanar had been consecrated by the community members. However, the original application filed under Section 64 of the Act was returned by the 1st respondent. A writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.18505 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner against the above original application being returned. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31.07.2023, directing the 1st respondent to number and dispose of the original application. 6. Pursuant thereto, the said application was numbered as O.A.No.24 of 2023 and the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 27.12.2023 to the petitioner, fixing the date for enquiry on 03.01.2024. The petitioner sought time inasmuch as the time provided was inadequate. The 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a fresh notice would be issued, intimating the date. However, no notice/intimation was issued by the 2nd respondent, for almost three months. 7. While so, on 21.03.2024, the 2nd respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to be present before the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2024 for an enquiry. The petitioner visited the office of the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2024, the 2nd respondent was not available. Thereafter, without issuing any further notice, the 2nd respondent has chosen to submit/file a report before the 1st respondent, without obtaining statements or documents. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 21.03.2024. 8. Case of the petitioner: 8.1 That in terms of Section 64 of the Act, the Joint Commissioner is conferred with power to frame a scheme for the proper administration of an institution in two circumstances viz., (a) If the Joint Commissioner has “reasons to believe” that settling a scheme is in the interest of proper administration of Institution/Temple (or) (b) On an application of not less than 5 persons having interest stating that a Scheme is to be settled in the interest of proper administration of an institution. 8.2 The Joint Commissioner would then consult in the prescribed manner with the Trustees and the persons having interest. The 2 nd respondent has no role in framing a Scheme under Section 64 of the Act. 8.2 The Joint Commissioner would then consult in the prescribed manner with the Trustees and the persons having interest. The 2 nd respondent has no role in framing a Scheme under Section 64 of the Act. Thus, the impugned notice of the 2 nd respondent calling upon the petitioner for an enquriy is without authority. 8.3 It is trite law that when the Act provides that an act shall be performed in a particular method and manner it should be done in such manner and no other. 8.4 The impugned proceedings by the 2 nd respondent is an abdication of power by the 1 st respondent or an act in excess of its jurisdiction by the 2 nd respondent and thus unsustainable. 9.Case of the Respondents: 9.1 To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the enquiry by the 2 nd respondent is preliminary in nature and does not in any manner result in abdication of authority by the 1 st respondent nor an act in excess of the jurisdiction by the 2 nd respondent. 9.2 That it has been the practice of the 1 st respondent to require the 2 nd respondent to conduct the preliminary enquriy and gather evidence/material and thus the challenge to the impugned proceedings is without any basis. 9.3 The learned counsel for the respondents would place reliance on sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act and also the order in the Department Manual to submit that the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to attend an enquiry proposed to be conducted by the Inspector is within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. 10. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 11. It appears to me that the impugned proceedings by the 2nd respondent Inspector, is in excess of his jurisdiction for the following reasons: a) Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to understand the scope of Section 64 of the Act, it may thus be necessary to extract Section 64 of the Act, which reads as under: “64. Power of [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] [Substituted by section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995).] to settle schemes. Power of [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] [Substituted by section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995).] to settle schemes. (1)When [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] has reason to believe that in the interest of the proper administration of an institution, a scheme should be settled for the institution, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing, stating that in the interests of the proper administration of an institution a scheme should be settled for it, [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be , [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons having interest [xxx] [Words 'and the Area Committee, if any, exercising powers and discharging duties in respect of the institution' were omitted by Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1968.] and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall, order, settle a scheme of administration for the institution.Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "institution" means a temple or a specific endowment attached to a temple. ...................... (3)[The Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] may determine what the properties of the institution are and append to the scheme a schedule containing a list of such properties. (4)Pending the settlement of a scheme for an institution, [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] may appoint a fit person to perform all or any of the functions of the trustee thereof and define his powers and duties. (4)Pending the settlement of a scheme for an institution, [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] may appoint a fit person to perform all or any of the functions of the trustee thereof and define his powers and duties. (5) (a) [The Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may, at any time, after consulting the trustee and the persons having interest, by order, modify or cancel any scheme in force settled under sub-section (1) or any scheme in force settled or modified by the Board under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927), or deemed to have been settled under that Act, or any scheme in force settled or modified by the [Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] or the Commissioner under this Act, or any scheme in force settled or modified by the Court in a suit under sub-section (1) of section 70, or an appeal under sub-section (2) of that section or any such scheme in force deemed to have been settled or modified by the Court under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 118:Provided that such cancellation or modification of a scheme in force settled or modified by the Court in a suit under sub-section (1) of section 70 or on an appeal under sub-section (2) of that section or of a scheme in force deemed to have been settled or modified by the Court under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 118 shall be made only subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed.](b)If [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] is satisfied that any such scheme referred to in clause (a) is inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, he may, at any time, after consulting the trustee and the persons having interest in the institution [xxx] [Words 'and the Area Committee, if any, exercising powers and discharging duties in respect of the institution' were omitted by Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1968.], modify it in such manner as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” (emphasis supplied) 12. It may be relevant to examine the Framing of Scheme Rules inasmuch as Section 64 of the Act while providing that the 1 st respondent shall before settling a Scheme consult with the trustees and the persons having interest, provides that it shall be done in the prescribed manner i.e., in terms of Framing of Scheme Rules; “15. Framing of Schemes Rules is extracted hereunder: “(G. O. Ms. No. 4851, Revenue, dated the 26th November 1960) SRO No. A-170 of 1960-In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 64 and 65 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following rules, namely:- 1. These rules may be called the Framing of Schemes Rules. 2. The consultation required under sub-sections (1), 5(a) and 5(b) of section 64 shall be made in the following manner :- (a) When the [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] proposes on his own motion to take action under sub-section (1) or 5(a), or (5) (b) of section 64 in respect of any institution coming under that section or where an application under sub-section (1) is received by him, he shall give notice of his proposal or the application, as the case may be, to the trustee or the trustees [and the Assistant Commissioner, if any), having jurisdiction over the institution and the persons having interest calling upon them to submit any representations they may wish to make before a date to be specified in such notice, which shall not be less than two months from the date of its issue. (b) If, after a consideration of the objections, or suggestions, if any, received by him, he has reason to believe that a scheme should be settled, or modified or cancelled, he shall give notice to the trustee or the trustees, Assistant Commissioner, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution and the persons having interest, of his intention to settle, modify or cancel a scheme of administration for the institution and call upon to submit in writing any objections or suggestions they may wish to make before the date specified in such notice for an enquiry. (c) The notice under sub-rules (a) and (b) shall be sent by registered post to the trustee or the trustees and to the Assistant Commissioner concerned and the persons having interest. (c) The notice under sub-rules (a) and (b) shall be sent by registered post to the trustee or the trustees and to the Assistant Commissioner concerned and the persons having interest. A copy of the notice shall be affixed on the notice board or front door of the temple and in the case of a specific endowment attached to a temple, on the notice board or front door of the temple to which the specific endowment is attached, on the notice board of the [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner), and on the notice board of the office of the Assistant Commissioner within whose division the institution is situate, and on the notice board of the office of the Municipal Council including the Corporation of [Chennai] or village chavadi concerned. Such affixture shall be deemed to be sufficient intimation to persons having interest. All representations submitted in time by the trustee or the Assistant Commissioner, or persons having interest shall be taken into consideration by the [Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner] in settling, modifying or cancelling the scheme. 3. While considering the modification or cancellation of a scheme in force settled or modified by the Court in a suit under sub-section (1) of section 70 or on an appeal under sub- section (2) of that section or of a scheme in force deemed to have been settled or modified by the Court under clause (1) of sub-section (2) of section 118, the ¹[Joint/Deputy Commissioner] shall give notice of the modifications or the reasons for cancellation proposed by him to the trustee or the trustees and the Assistant Commissioner, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution and persons having interest calling upon them to submit any representations, they may wish to make before a date to be specified in such notice which shall not be less than two months.” (emphasis supplied) 13. From a reading of Section 64 of the Act with the Framing of Scheme Rules, the following position appears to emerge viz., a) Section 64 of the Act confers powers on the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to settle schemes for the proper administration of an Institution i.e., a temple or a specific endowment attached to a temple; b) The Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner may frame a scheme, if there are reasons to believe that a scheme should be settled for the institution in the interest of its proper administration (or) a scheme may be settled on an application made by not less than five persons having interest in the institution stating that a scheme should be settled in the interest of the proper administration of such institution; c) The Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner shall then consult in the prescribed manner with the trustee and the persons having interest, if after such consultation, the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, shall settle a scheme for administration of the institution; d) The Framing of Schemes Rules provides that where an application is received by the Joint Commissioner, he shall give notice of the application to the trustees and the Assistant Commissioner, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution and the persons having interest to submit representation, within the date specified in the notice, which shall not be less than two months, from the date of issuance of such notice; e) If the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner on consideration of the objection/suggestion if any received by him has reason to believe that a scheme should be settled or modified or cancelled shall give notice to the trustee or trustees, Assistant Commissioner, or any person having interest of his intention to settle a scheme for administration of the institution and call upon them to submit their objection or suggestion in writing, before the date specified in the notice for enquiry. All representations submitted by the trustee or Assistant Commissioner or persons having interest shall be taken into consideration by the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner in settling, modifying or cancelling the scheme. 14. All representations submitted by the trustee or Assistant Commissioner or persons having interest shall be taken into consideration by the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner in settling, modifying or cancelling the scheme. 14. It appears to me that once an application is filed under Section 64 of the Act to frame a Scheme, it contemplates a two stage process to be carried out in the method and manner prescribed before proceeding to settle a scheme, viz., a) A preliminary objection is called for with regard to the proposed action by the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, either on its own motion or on an application submitted under Section 64 of the Act of his proposal to settle a Scheme. b) On considering the objection or suggestion, if the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner has “reason to believe” that a scheme should be settled, he shall give notice calling upon the trustees, Assistant Commissioner or any person having interest to submit in writing any objection/suggestion before the date of such enquiry. 15. It is important to note that the above acts viz., consultation, calling for objection, consideration of objection, formation of belief of the need to settle a Scheme for proper administration of the institution ought to be performed by the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. 16. On a cumulative reading of Section 64 of the Act read with Framing of Scheme Rules, it is evident that the 2nd respondent would have no role in framing a Scheme for the administration of the Institution muchless power to enquire as proposed by the 2nd respondent viz., the Inspector, HR and CE Department, Madurai, vide the impugned notice. 17. Keeping in view the above statutory framework in mind, the impugned notice by the 2nd respondent viz., Inspector (HR and CE) Department, calling upon the petitioner for an enquiry pursuant to an application under Section 64(1) of the Act, appears to be bad for want of jurisdiction also for the reason that there is no power vested with the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to delegate the act of consultation/enquiry to the Inspector. This would be clear if we have a look at Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, which provides for delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, which shall be made with the previous approval of the Government. This would be clear if we have a look at Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, which provides for delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, which shall be made with the previous approval of the Government. The Rules relating to Delegation of Power Rules would also make it clear that the power to delegation is conferred under the Act, only to the Commissioner which again ought to be made in compliance with the procedure prescribed. There is no power with the Joint Commissioner to delegate the power of enquiry to the Inspector. 17.1. Keeping in view the above position, this Court finds that the impugned notification is in excess of jurisdiction of the 2 nd Respondent. In this regard, it may be relevant to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads as under: 17.2. A reading of the above communication would appear to suggest that the Inspector has called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry, failing which, it is stated that a report would be submitted to the Joint Commissioner. Neither an enquiry by the Inspector nor submission of a report being filed by the Inspector is contemplated under the Act or the Rules. Thus, the impugned notice is in excess of the authority of the 2 nd Respondent. It may also be relevant to bear in mind that the impugned proceeding cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Act requires a consultation by the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner with the Trustees, or any person having interest. The Rule provides for consideration of objection and formation of reason to believe of the need to settle a scheme and an enquiry thereafter being carried out by the Joint Commissioner. However, the Joint Commissioner has neither consulted with the Trustees, Assistant Commissioner, or any person having interest nor has there been formation of reason to believe of the need to settle a Scheme nor has an enquiry been made by the Joint Commissioner. 17.3. However, the Joint Commissioner has neither consulted with the Trustees, Assistant Commissioner, or any person having interest nor has there been formation of reason to believe of the need to settle a Scheme nor has an enquiry been made by the Joint Commissioner. 17.3. Assuming that the impugned notice is an enquiry permissible in terms of Framing of Schemes Rules and the 2nd respondent, viz., the Inspector does have the power to conduct such enquiry, nevertheless the impugned action of the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained inasmuch as it is neither preceded by a consultation nor formation of reason to believe by the Joint Commissioner i.e., the 1 st Respondent herein as contemplated under the Act and Rules. To appreciate the relevance of consultation when mandated under the Act/Rules and formation of reason to believe, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments: i) Partap Singh (Dr) v. Director of Enforcement reported in (1985) 3 SCC 72 : “10. The expression “reason to believe” is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the Officer. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot merely be a pretence. In the same case, it was held that it is open to the court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section….” ii) Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 144 : “29. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board [ AIR 1967 SC 295 ] this Court pointed out, on consideration of several English and Indian authorities that the expressions “is satisfied”, “is of the opinion” and “has reason to believe” are indicative of subjective satisfaction, though it is true that the nature of the power has to be determined on a totality of consideration of all the relevant provisions.” iii) N. Nagendra Rao Co. v. State of A.P., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 205 : “5……The expression “reason to believe” has been interpreted by this Court to mean that even though formation of opinion may be subjective but it must be based on material on the record.” iv) Sheonath Singh vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1973) SCC (TAX) 621: “The words “reason to believe” suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable ground and that the Income Tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour.” 17.4. It is thus clear that it is only if Joint Commissioner has reason to believe on the basis of material on record that the Scheme should be settled for the proper administration of the institution/ temple that Scheme under Section 64 of the Act may be settled. Reason to believe that a Scheme must be settled for the proper administration of the Scheme is a condition precedent. However, there is no material produced indicating that the 1 st Respondent has reason to believe that a Scheme must be settled for the proper administration of the Scheme. It is also relevant to note that if the statute contemplating consultation before exercise of power, such consultation is mandatory and failure to consult the entities in the manner provided/ prescribed would vitiate the proceeding. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of G.Syed Kutharathulla and others vs The Secretary, Backward Classes in WP (MD) Nos.24409 of 2022 and batch cases, wherein it was held as under: “24. To answer the above question it may be relevant to contrast Section 69 and 32 which deals with framing of Schemes while Section 32 (2) (d) of the Act provides that settlement of Scheme shall not be made without giving the "parties affected an opportunity of being heard", in contrast Section 69 requires the Scheme to be framed "after consultation with the Mutawalli or the applicant in the prescribed manner". There seems to be a conscious use of different expressions in Sections 32 (2) (d) and 69 of the Act, while dealing with different classes of persons / entities involved with the Wakf. There seems to be a conscious use of different expressions in Sections 32 (2) (d) and 69 of the Act, while dealing with different classes of persons / entities involved with the Wakf. While Section 32 deals with parties affected and provides that they shall be granted an opportunity of heard, Section 69 deals with Mutawalli and Applicant and provides that the Scheme shall be framed after consultation. 25. In the present case the highest that has been set out by the counsel for the respondent in response to the submission of lack/absence of consultation, is that personal hearing was granted and the same would constitute and satisfy the requirement of consultation mandated under Section 69 of the Act. The above submission has no legal basis and it would be evident from the fact that Parliament has chosen to employ different expressions while dealing with the nature of the right / opportunity to be extended to entities involved in different capacities in the framing of the Schemes. While with reference to "parties affected" it provides for opportunity of being heard , whereas while dealing with Mutawalli and the applicant it mandates consultation. When Parliament has expressed itself differently with reference to different set of entities, it ought to be understood that the intent was to convey different meaning. 26. Importantly, consultation requires meetings of minds with definite facts constituting the foundation and source for final decision being made available to the persons/entities to be consulted to make the above exercise meaningful and ensure that the intended purpose/object of the above exercise is served. Section 69(1) of the Act mandates that any Scheme shall be framed after consultation with the Mutawalli or applicant. Any failure to comply with the mandate of "consultation" renders the entire action ultra vires under Section 69 of the Act. 27. Applying the above principles to the instant case, wherein admittedly the Draft Scheme was not even circulated to the petitioners herein/parties affected / interested parties and thus there was not even an attempt to comply with the process of consultation in compliance with Section 69 of the Act. The Scheme was finalized in less that 24 hours on receipt of the Draft Scheme from the external entity clearly showing pre-determination and disregard to the requirement of consultation as mandated under Section 69 of the Act. The Scheme was finalized in less that 24 hours on receipt of the Draft Scheme from the external entity clearly showing pre-determination and disregard to the requirement of consultation as mandated under Section 69 of the Act. To understand / appreciate the significance of consultation when the statute requires the same, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments: a) Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. Justice R.A Mehta, 2013 (3) SCC 1 , wherein considering the concept of consultation and when a consultation is said to be undertaken the Court held as follows: "25. The object of consultation is to render its process meaningful so that it may serve its intended purpose. Consultation requires the meeting of minds between the parties that are involved in the consultative process on the basis of material facts and points in order to arrive at a correct or at least a satisfactory solution. If a certain power can be exercised only after consultation such consultation must be conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful. To ensure this, each party must disclose to the other all relevant facts for due deliberation. The consultee must express his opinion only after complete consideration of the matter on the basis of all the relevant facts and quintessence. Consultation may have different meanings in different situations depending upon the nature and purpose of the statute... " b) In Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court (1969) 3 SCC 56 (para 7), Hon ble Apex Court held as under: "consultation or deliberation can neither be complete nor effective before the parties thereto make their respective points of view known to the other or others and discuss and examine the relative merits of their views. If one party makes a proposal to the other, who has a counter- proposal in mind which is not communicated to the proposer, a direction issued to give effect to the counter-proposal without any further discussion with respect to such counter-proposal with the proposer cannot be said to have been issued after consultation. If one party makes a proposal to the other, who has a counter- proposal in mind which is not communicated to the proposer, a direction issued to give effect to the counter-proposal without any further discussion with respect to such counter-proposal with the proposer cannot be said to have been issued after consultation. If a certain power can be exercised only after consultation, such consultation cannot be said to have been undertaken if one party makes a proposal to the other/ authority, who has a different proposal in mind, which is not communicated to the proposer and a direction by the authority to give effect to such different proposal is made . c) When the authority is required to act in consultation with entities/authorities expressly indicated it cannot done through any other external entity. For instance if A is empowered to appoint B in consultation with C, he will not be exercising the power in the manner prescribed if he appoints B in consultation with C and D. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1967) 1 SCR 77 : These provisions indicate that the duty to consult is so integrated with the exercise of the power that the power can be exercised only in consultation with the person or persons designated therein. To state it differently, if A is empowered to appoint B in consultation with C, he will not be exercising the power in the manner prescribed if he appoints B in consultation with C and D These provision indicate that the duty to consult is so integrated with the exercise of the power that the power can be exercised only in consultation with the person or persons designated there. In another case, it was said in the same context consultation is not complete or effective before parties thereto make the respective points of view known to theother or others and discuss and e amine the relative merits of their views. If one party makes a proposal the other party has a counter proposal in his mind which is not communicated to the proposer, an order issued to give effect to the counter cannot be said to have been made after consultation. If one party makes a proposal the other party has a counter proposal in his mind which is not communicated to the proposer, an order issued to give effect to the counter cannot be said to have been made after consultation. But if a meeting all the persons required to be consulted is called in which all of them have opportunity to be present and deliberate, a decision taken in the meeting cannot be challenged on the ground that some of the persons required be consulted were absent in the meeting. Applying the above judgement to the case on hand, the Act having identified the entities to be consulted viz., Mutawalli or applicant, it excludes consultation with any other body / entity and exercise of power in consultation with an entity not identified by the statute would vitiate the proceeding. 28. It may also be relevant to refer to the following passages in Book Titled “Penumbra of Natural Justice" by Tapash Gan Choudhury, wherein, while dealing with the usual Requirements of consultation, the learned Author has explained as under: (a) The consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. The proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. (b) Those consulted must be provided with sufficient information to enable them to express their views. It bears mentioning, however, that it is not necessary to provide ample information, but at least enough information is to be furnished to enable the purpose of the consultation to be fulfilled. (c) The potential consultees must be allowed sufficient time for consideration and response. The scale, complexity and importance of the subject matter are factors in assessing how much time is required. Though the court is at liberty to make allowances where decisions are required to be taken urgently, and will assess the time allowed by reference to the facts as they appeared to the authority at the time, no degree of urgency can absolve the authority from the obligation to consult at all. If the original time-limit is very short, the authority unreasonable if it refuses a request for an expansion. It has time-limit is complied with noted, however, that if a statutory is not for the court to say that too little time has been allowed. If the original time-limit is very short, the authority unreasonable if it refuses a request for an expansion. It has time-limit is complied with noted, however, that if a statutory is not for the court to say that too little time has been allowed. (d) The decision-maker must consult with an open mind and listen, in the words of Ackner, LJ as expressed R. v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex Brent London Borough Council with mind 'Ajar'. A failure to pay any heed to the views expressed in consultation might be impugned on the ground of failure to take account of relevant considerations. (e) The result of consultation must be consciously taken into account in finalizing any statutory proposals. It has to be borne in mind that the decision-maker is not bound by the views expressed to him by the consultee. This would be an unlawful fettering of discretion.” 18. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned notice of the 2 nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on an application filed under Section 64 of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus liable to be set aside. 19. For the above reasons, the impugned notice is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.