RAMAN RAVI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent in A.P. No. 12 of 2012-D2 dated 17.4.2012, confirming the order of the second respondent in I.A. No. 3 of 2011 in O.A. No. 4 of 2010 dated 14.3.2012, impleading the third respondent herein as necessary and proper party in O.A. No. 4 of 2010, filed by the petitioner under Section 63-A of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition, according to the petitioner, are as follows:

(2.) The third respondent has filed counter affidavit contending as follows:

(3.) The first respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner's application made in O.A. No. 4 of 2010 is pending before the second respondent with a prayer to declare that the Prayer Hall is not a temple or religious institution coming under Section 6(20) and 6(18) of the Act. During pendency of the OA, two IAs were filed by T.R. Anand Padmanabhan and L. Krishnakumar to implead themselves as party respondents. The said petitions were dismissed by the Joint Commissioner on 27.10.2010 on the ground that the report of the concerned Divisional Inspector on the OA is awaited and before the report is filed, i.e. pending enquiry, allowing another party to represent will badly affect the work of the Inspector. Therefore, the petitioners therein were directed to approach the Inspector and produce evidence before the Inspector. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the first respondent. The third respondent filed I.A. No. 3 of 2011 to implead himself in O.A. No. 4 of 2010 stating that he has documentary, oral and photo evidences in the matter to disprove the claim made by the petitioner. A counter statement was filed by the petitioner opposing the impleadment and after considering the rival contentions, second respondent allowed the IA by order dated 14.3.2010, against which the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent in A.P. No. 12 of 2012, which was also dismissed after hearing respective counsels and perusing the records. It is further stated that IA was filed by the third respondent on different footing that he is having oral and documentary evidence and video recordings to disprove the claim of the petitioner and the said evidence will be useful for the decision to be taken. The earlier dismissal of the application filed by two other persons was on the facts of the said petition filed and at that time enquiry by Inspector was not over. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the evidences filed by the third respondent in the impleading petition discloses existence of paid Poojari for the temple, offerings are being received from the devotees by poojari, and considering the importance of the documents, second respondent allowed the implead petition. The statement of total income filed by the Melsanthi shows a sum of Rs. 85,200/- as offerings from the devotees. The electricity service connection was obtained by submitting Application No. 118232 stating that service connection is required for "Ayyappan Koil" at No. 10, Malviya Avenue, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41. The said documents are relevant for deciding the character of the Temple. Hence, the second respondent, though fit to implead the third respondent as necessary and proper party in the OA, which was also confirmed by the first respondent by dismissing the appeal.