Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) G.O.Ms.No.894, Rural Welfare Dept. dated 28.8.1951

---------------------------------------------------------- } G.O.Ms.No.1278, Revenue Dept. dated 21.5.1954 Though the temple had been declared as a public temple, provisions of the Act could not be enforced. Hence, in order to enforce the provisions of the Act, temple was notified under Chapter VI (A) u/s.65 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.894, Rural Welfare Dept. dated 28.8.1951. The said Government Order was challenged in W.P.Nos.379 and 380/1951 by Dikshidars and the notification was quashed by the Judgment dated 13.12.1951. Challenging the Order in W.P. Nos. 379 and 380/1951, Government have filed C.A.No.39/1953 before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, by G.O.Ms.No.1278, Revenue Dept. dated 21.5.1954, State Government cancelled the above notification and the Civil Appeal was therefore withdrawn.

4) When the original show cause notice was based on one set of alleged mismanagement, can Commissioner/Government change the basis of mismanagement?

5) Whether the impugned order is vitiated due to alleged paradigm shift in the enquiry as contended by the Petitioner.

6) Whether the appointment of Executive Officer is an interference with the religious affairs and whether the same is violative of Art.26 of Constitution of India.

9. About the temple :-

Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram is a public temple of Hindu Religious Institution within the meaning of Sec.6 (18) read with Sec.6 (20) of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act. Chidambaram Temple is a famous Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva located in the heart of the temple town of Chidambaram. Chidambaram Temple dedicated to Lord Shiva (Siva) in His form of the Cosmic Dancer, Nataraja ( eluhrh; ) is a temple complex spread over 40 acres in the heart of the city. Lord Natarajar is the symbolic representation of the supreme bliss or aananda natanam. Saivaites believe that a visit to Chidambaram leads to liberation.

13. In the said decision, High Court has recorded a finding that it cannot be doubted that the suit temple is a public institution within the meaning of the Act and not a private temple as contended by Podhu Dikshidars. The observations of the High Court in the said decision read as follows:-

" ..... So far as the question of jurisdiction based on the non-applicability of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel, we think, wisely refrained from pressing it because it cannot be seriously doubted that the suit temple is a public institution within the meaning of the Act and not a private temple as contended for. We agree that some of the grounds on which the learned District Judge purported to hold against the plaintiffs may not be valid, but having regard to the character of the temple it seems to us that it would be too much to contend that this is a private temple. So early as 1885 when the question was raised in a suit by the Dikshitars, Muthuswami Aiyar and Shephard, JJ., in their judgment dated 17th March, 1890, in A.S.Nos.108 and 159 of 1888 observed that it was not denied that the institution was being used as a place of public worship from time immemorial and that there was no particle of evidence in support of the assertion that this ancient temple of Sri Nataraja was the private property of the Dikshitars. Even now it is not denied that this temple is held to be very sacred by all the Saivites in this Presidency and is resorted to as a place of public worship. ......"[underlining added]

57. In the light of the well-settled principles if we examine the instant case, Podhu Dikshidars can claim protection under Article 25 of Constitution. It may be that form of worship may be protected under Article 25 and 26 (a) of Constitution. But right to manage the temple or offerings or Kattalais [endowment] are not integral to religion or religious practice and as such are amenable to statutory control. As has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that the secular activities are subject to statutory control. When examined in the light of the well-settled principles, Podhu Dikshidars are not entitled to the protection in particular clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26 of Constitution as 'religious denomination' in the matter of management, administration and governance of the temple under the Act. As such appointment of Executive Officer is not ultra vires the Article 25 and 26 of Constitution of India. The contention that appointment of Executive Officer is violative of Article 25 (b) and (d) of the Constitution is untenable and devoid of substance.