Temple scheme modification: Executive Officer appointment needs proven necessity; future addition of trustees clause was upheld.

In temple scheme modification proceedings, the Court held that appointment of an Executive Officer is not automatic and requires a factual basis showing necessity; absent proved mismanagement, a drastic displacement of the trustee cannot be ordered merely on administrative preference, and the direction appointing an Executive Officer was set aside. The clause preserving power to add trustees in future was upheld because it did not mandate immediate addition, only recognised a contingent power if necessity arose. The scheme was otherwise sustained with only ancillary modifications, leaving the trustee in charge subject to the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings to modify a temple scheme, the Court was bound to accept the Commissioner's view and could direct appointment of an Executive Officer without proof of mismanagement; (ii) whether the clause empowering future addition of trustees was justified.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings to modify a temple scheme, the Court was bound to accept the Commissioner's view and could direct appointment of an Executive Officer without proof of mismanagement.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested supervisory powers in the authorities, but the Court retained an independent duty to examine whether a scheme needed modification and whether particular clauses were warranted on the facts. Appointment of an Executive Officer under the Act was not automatic; it required a factual foundation, and a drastic displacement of the trustee could not be ordered merely because the Commissioner thought it desirable. The concurrent finding was that no mismanagement by the trustee had been proved, and the record did not justify placing the entire administration in the hands of an Executive Officer.

Conclusion: The direction appointing an Executive Officer was not justified and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the clause empowering future addition of trustees was justified.

Analysis: The clause did not mandate immediate appointment of additional trustees but only preserved a power to add them if future necessity arose. The statutory framework also recognised such a power, and the appellant was not prejudiced by retaining the clause.

Conclusion: The clause concerning possible future addition of trustees was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The scheme was upheld only to the extent of the formal and ancillary modifications, but the provisions transferring day-to-day control to an Executive Officer were deleted, leaving the trustee in charge subject to the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment of an Executive Officer to displace a trustee in a temple scheme requires a factual basis showing necessity, and absent proved mismanagement the Court cannot impose such a drastic alteration merely on administrative preference.

---