A.R. LAKSHAMANAN, J.

( 1 ) AS the issues involved in both these writ petitions are similar, they can be disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 2250 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Sri Rameswaraswamy temple and Sri Venugopala Swamy temple, Nagula Uppalapalem village. The writ petition was filed to quash the office reference no. G2/15093/90, dated 18-6-1990 and the consequential proceedings in RC. No. B2/1144/90, dated 23-6-1990 by which the Assistant Commissioner of endowments appointed Executive Officer.

( 3 ) THE only contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has passed the order appointing an Executive Officer without arty prior notice to the person in management. The petitioner being the hereditary trustee is in the management of the two temples and therefore the 1st respondent cannot disturb the management of the petitioner by appointment of an executive Officer under the proceedings in question. In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in P. Sridhar Rao v. Govt. of A. P. (Two Judges).

( 4 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that even though there are no specific allegations against the management of the two temples in the hands of the hereditary trustees, as a policy matter these two temples have been included in Pothavaram group of temples and an Executive Officer has been appointed to these temples also. It is submitted that the Commissioner has power to appoint Executive Officer. It is further submitted that the appointment of executive Officer is not a burdensome one and that his salary will be met along with other temples duly considering the annual income of the temples in his charge and the salary of the Executive Officer will also be apportioned taking into consideration the income of the temple only and that the appointment of the Executive Officer is only for better and proper administration of the temple. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the contention of the petitioner has no merit and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the respondents cited a decision of the Supreme Court rendered by five Judges Bench in K. A. Samajam v. Commr. , H. R. and C. E. , wherein the Honble supreme Court held in para 13 as follows:. . . . We have no hesitation in concurring with the decision of the High Court that restrictions which have been imposed by the provisions of the on the hereditary trustees are reasonable and are in the interest of the general public. The power to appoint non-hereditary trustees or executive Officers where there is already a hereditary trustee or trustees notwithstanding that there is no mismanagement is only for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. . . . .

( 5 ) IN view of the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench, I am of the opinion that the writ petitions have no merit and that the appointment of an Executive Officer is perfectly in order. The writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. The interim order passed by this court is vacated.