P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. He has filed a suit O.S. No. 115 of 1970 to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in M.P. No. 44 of 1969 wherein the petitioner herein has been suspended on four charges framed against him. It is unnecessary for me to elaborately discuss the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner herein. No doubt, the petitioner was the hereditary trustee, according to him. from 1945 onwards. In 1969, the Assistant Commissioner appointed three additional non-hereditary trustees to act along with the petitioner herein. Subsequent to this appointment, the charges were framed against the petitioner and specific charges were given to the petitioner. These charges were framed on 15th November, 1969. On these charges, the Deputy Commissioner suspended him. Against these charges, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal of the revision by the Commissioner the petitioner herein preferred W.P, No. 3676 of 1969. Alagiriswami, J., at the admission stage itself, observed:
Here is a very clear case of conflict between the petitioner's self interest and his interest as a trustee. The Deputy Commissioner is undoubtedly right in taking the view that he should be placed under suspension in the circumstances. The interests of the temple will certainly suffer if the petitioner is allowed to continue as a trustee.
and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner, subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, invoking the provisions of Section 53(6), has filed O.S. No. 115 of 1970. M.R. Sundaralingam, the learned Counsel for the respondent^ submits that the suit itself is not maintain, able inasmuch as the suit is not against any final order passed by the authority constituted under Madras Act XXII of 19b9. Since this is a matter which has to be discussed and decided by the trial Court, I am not expressing any opinion on the same. M. Somasundaram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, brings to my notice Section 53(4) and states that there are no proved charges against the petitioner herein in order to appoint a fit person under Section 53(4) of Madras Act XXII of 1959. For my part, lam not able to understand as to why such an argument has been put forth. It is clear that specific charges have been framed against the petitioner. Section 53(4) is also clear to the effect that pending the disposal of the charges framed against the trustee, the appropriate authority may place the trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the trustee.
2. From the facts of the present case, it is very clear that the petitioner is more worried about the property of the God rather than serving the God as the Poojari. There are specific charges against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed in his prior proceedings up to the Writ Petition. No. 3676 of 1969. As at present, the petitioner has failed to get the injunction, both from the trial Court and from the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has come forward with the present revision petition.
3. From the discussion above, it is clear that the interests of the temple will be better served if the injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner herein. It is clear that the fit person appointed has absolutely no personal interest in the temple or in its properties, but be is an officer of the department who has been, asked to be in charge of the temple, its properties and its administration. No harm will be caused, either to the temple or to the worshippers, if the fit person is continued to function pending disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner herein. There is absolutely no question of any jurisdiction involved in the present civil revision petition, and hence the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the civil revision petition.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein was suspended as early as 25th November, 1969. Mr. Somasundaram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the authorities concerned have not taken any steps to dispose of the charges framed against the petitioner herein in spite of the fact that the petitioner has submitted his explanation for the charges framed as early as 25th November, 1969. It is better that the authorities concerned dispose of this matter as expeditiously as possible and render justice to the petitioner without any further delay in the matter.