K NEELAMEGA BHATTACHARIYAR Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner claiming to be an Archakar of Arulmighu Devanathaswamy Temple at Thiruvandipuram in Cuddalore District has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Cuddalore, dated 19.04.2012 and seeks to set aside the same with consequential direction not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Sthanic / Archaka of the said temple.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 24.04.2012, this court directed the counsel for respondents to get instructions. Accordingly, on behalf of respondents, learned Advocate General appeared. Heard the arguments of Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Kandaswamy, learned Special Government Pleader (HR&CE Department) and Mr.M.Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is the Stanika Archakar of the temple for the past 70 years. His father and forefathers were Archakars. Traditionally the petitioner's family has right to perform poojas and stanikam services in the temple without any payment. When a dispute arose between his grand father and the management committee of the temple with reference to installation of Hundial inside the temple by the temple management committee, a suit was filed before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore being O.S.No.868 of 1896. The said suit had ended in favour of the petitioner's grand father. The temple management instead of enhancing the revenue of the temple started to put some spokes to the earlier order passed by the court. The Archakas in the temple were threatened not to collect any offerings from the devotees. The devotees were prevented from giving offerings in the Archakas plates and cups on it. The HR&CE Commissioner had filed O.P.No.88 of 1951 on the file of the Sub judge, Cuddalore to set aside the scheme framed for administering the temple, which was earlier settled in O.S.No.6 of 1930. On 13.04.1955, a scheme was formulated and modified. The said scheme was challenged by the HR&CE Commissioner in Appeal No.265 of 1955. By a judgment dated 3.3.1957, the scheme was modified with reference to collection of offerings in the plates and cups by the petitioner's father as well as the custody of jewels belonged to the Deity. Aggrieved by the modification, the petitioner's father had filed an appeal before this court being L.P.A.No.124 of 1959. There was further modification of the scheme on 21.01.1962. The scheme with reference to paragraph 2(c) was modified. It is the amended scheme which is in force.