P. RAGHUPATHY NAICKER Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, relating to the same temple (Arulmighu Kanniamman Temple) are connected and hence they are taken up together. The petitioner has been admittedly hereditary trustee of the said temple. The 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, is same. The 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 9130 of 1984 is one K. Kasthuri Rangan, described as the Executive Officer of another temple (Arulmighu Sakthi Vinayagar Temple). The 3rd respondent in W.P.No. 14306 of 1993 is the Executive Officer of the said Sakthi Vinayagar Temple. The 2nd respondent in W. P.No. 14306 of 1993 is the Assistant Commissioner of the above said H. R. & C.E. Department, Kancheepuram.

(2.) W.P.No. 9130 of 1984 seeks a mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent therein to forbear from taking charge of the management of the said Kanniamman temple from the petitioner and from interfering with the petitioners administration of the said temple. 2A. As per the affidavit in support of the said writ petition, the said writ petition has been filed in view of the communication dated 5-9-1984 from the 2nd respondent therein, stating that he has been appointed Fit Person of the said Kanniamman temple as per order dated 29-8-1984 of the 1st respondent therein and that the petitioner should hand overcharge of the temple to him on 12-9-1984. The said affidavit further states that the 1st respondent "should have sent" to the petitioner his above referred order dated 29-8-1984, suspending the petitioner from the hereditary trusteeship of the said temple and "then only he should have appointed the 2nd respondent as the fit person" to the said temple. In other words, the implication is that the petitioner did not receive the said order dated 29-8-1984, suspending the petitioner from the hereditary trusteeship of the abovesaid temple.

(3.) Before I proceed to describe the nature of W.P.No. 14306 of 1994, I may here itself straightaway deal with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the abovesaid averment in the affidavit in support of W.P.No. 9130 of 1984. In other words, the submission is that the abovesaid order of suspension dated 29-8-1994 has not been served at all on the petitioner and so the appointment of the 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 9130 of 1984, as fit person, cannot be valid. The 1st respondent has filed the original of the abovesaid order dated 29-8-1984, while suspending the petitioner from the hereditary trusteeship he was holding. The said order appoints the 2nd respondent as the Fit Person for the abovesaid temple. But, the whole question is whether the said order dated 29-8-1984 has been served on the petitioner. Unless it is proved to have been served on the petitioner, neither the abovesaid suspension of the petitioner nor the abovesaid appointment of 2nd respondent could take effect as against the petitioner. In this regard as against the allegations in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent only states as follows:-