post and it is not necessary to send the same to the Writ Petitioner stating that they are not trustees as claimed by them. The averment made in the counter affidavit of the third respondent is vague, as it does not state the date of despatch whether it was sent by registered post or not and other details. Therefore, the contentions of the third respondent that the copy of the order was sent to the person in management by post is held to be not substantiated. Though the third respondent takes a stand that the petitioner need not be provided with the copy, it is not known under what circumstances the signature of the petitioner and others were obtained by the fit person, when the hundial was opened on 28.10.2013. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that though the term of office of the trustee is over, they are still continuing. In such circumstances, the petitioners ought to have been heard in the matter after issuing notice to them, since such procedure had not been followed, it has to be necessarily held that the impugned order has been passed in 17 violation of principles of natural justice. Though the petitioner would contend that the temple is a denomination temple, established and maintained by the people belonging to a particular community, the third respondent has denied the contention and submitted that the H.R.,&C.E., department has been appointing non-hereditary trustees belonging to other community to the temple from time to time and the trustees are appointed in accordance with the stipulation under Section 47 of the Act. In the light of the above stand taken by the parties, this issue cannot be adjudicated in this Writ Petition and it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies under the Act in the manner known to law.'
