Madras High Court
Sivasubramania Battar vs The Commissioner on 8 March, 2012
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/03/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.2298 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 Sivasubramania Battar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tuticorin District. 3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Trichendur, Tuticorin District. 4.The Trustee, (Thakkar), Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Trichendur, Tuticorin District. 5.K.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.956/2012/AA6, dated 23.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional and for other consequential reliefs. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Raghavachari ^For Respondents 1 and 2... Mr.M.Alagudevan Special Government Pleader For Respondents 3&4 ... Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondent No.5 ... Mr.S.Muthalraj ******** :ORDER
****** The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 23 February, 2012, on the file of the third respondent, whereby and whereunder, the fifth respondent was appointed to perform the poojas from 18th to 20th day of Tamil month.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. According to the petitioner, his father was granted the privilege to do pooja Murai on the strength of the judgment and decree dated 08 December, 1971 in O.S.No.287 of 1969, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam, as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 06 November, 1972, in A.S.No.23 of 1972 on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Tiruchendur passed an order on 10 January, 1975, permitting Thiru.Subramania Battar, father of the petitioner to exercise his pooja Murai till his death. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner confirmed the right of the petitioner to exercise the pooja right.
3. The fifth respondent earlier initiated legal proceedings to recognize his right to conduct pooja. He was advised to file a civil suit.
Thereafter, he filed a civil suit. However, it was withdrawn at a later point of time.
4. The third respondent appointed the fifth respondent to do pooja during the Tamil month and more specifically, from 18th to 20th day. Since it is the turn of the petitioner to do pooja, he was constrained to challenge the order dated 23 February, 2012.
5. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, filed a counter disputing the right claimed by the petitioner. According to the Joint Commissioner, Subramania Battar was temporarily given the right to do the religious service. The proceedings dated 10 January, 1975 contains a clear statement that the hereditary right was not recognized. The fifth respondent also does not have any hereditary right to claim pooja murai. Thiru.Gomathi Sankara Battar has filed a suit in O.S.No.159 of 2010 before the learned District Munsif, Tiruchendur, impleading the writ petitioner, fifth respondent and the temple as parties and his prayer was to grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the authorities from disturbing his peaceful pooja kaingaryam in the temple from 18th to 20th day of every Tamil month. The said suit is pending. According to the Joint Commissioner, the appointment in question was made only as a temporary measure. The petitioner has no right to claim pooja right and as such, the very Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The fifth respondent also filed a counter, wherein it was contended that he was appointed to do kaingaryam and he has already assumed the poojariship and performed Ganapathi Komam to Kodi Mara Vinayagar. According to the fifth respondent, once the Ganapathi Komam is performed, one cannot reverse the function and as such, he should be permitted to complete the rituals.
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS:
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the proceedings dated 10 January, 1975, contended that the father of the petitioner was given the pooja right and the said right devolved on him by succession. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is entitled to do pooja during the Tamil month as it is now his turn. However, the third respondent with a mala fide intention appointed the fifth respondent and that too, after the withdrawal of the civil suit filed by him. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
8. The learned counsel, representing the third and fourth respondents, contended that the petitioner has no right to claim pooja murai. The proceedings dated 10 January, 1975 clearly indicates that it was only a temporary arrangement without recognizing his right. The fifth respondent was not appointed by recognizing his hereditary right. It was a temporary appointment to do pooja for a particular period. The appointment would not confer any right on him. The petitioner has got an alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
DISCUSSION:
9. The petitioner, by placing reliance on the proceedings dated 10 January, 1975, claims right to do pooja during the second part of 1 1/4 in every 18th to 20th of Tamil month. According to the petitioner, the right to do pooja murai was recognized by the civil Court in the earlier proceedings.
10. The proceedings dated 10 January, 1975 indicates that the appointment of the father of the petitioner was made only as a temporary measure. The said order contains a clear statement that the temple is not accepting the continuation of hereditary right to claim 1 1/4 in 2 1/2 days of Murai for Lord Sri.Armughanainar at Lord Shanmugar Sannathi from 18th night to 20th day of every Tamil month. It appears that there was a dispute between Thiru.S.Gomathi Sankara Battar and the petitioner with respect to pooja murai and a civil suit in O.S.No.159 of 2010 is now pending before the learned District Munsif, Tiruchendur. The fifth respondent is also a party to the said suit.
11. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition proceeds as if the fifth respondent was appointed by recognizing his hereditary right. The order dated 23 February, 2012 clearly says that the appointment was a temporary arrangement. The counter-affidavit filed by the Executive Officer, Tiruchendur Temple also gives a clear indication that the appointment was not in recognition of his alleged hereditary right.
12. The Writ Petition proceeds as if the hereditary right of the petitioner was taken away. The appointment of the fifth respondent was not challenged on the ground that applications were not called for from eligible Archagars. The procedure adopted by the Thakkar also remain unchallenged.
13. Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] deals with appointment of office-holders and servants in religious institutions. The expression "office-holders or servants" would also include Archakas and poojaries. Section 55(4) of the Act provides for filing an appeal. The appointment could be challenged by any of the aggrieved by filing an appeal before the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. The appellate authority would be in a position to consider the factual matrix and appreciate the matter in the light of the previous proceedings. The claim made by the petitioner with regard to the hereditary right was specifically denied by the Executive Officer. In fact, the earlier proceedings dated 10 January, 1975 also shows that the temple never recognized the hereditary right and the appointment of the father of the petitioner was also a temporary appointment without admitting the claim regarding the right to murai pooja.
CONCLUSION:
14. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority. The materials available on record are not sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy. In fact, there are no exceptional circumstances to entertain the Writ Petition notwithstanding the appellate remedy.
15. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
SML To
1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tuticorin District.
3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Trichendur, Tuticorin District.
4.The Trustee, (Thakkar), Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Trichendur, Tuticorin District.