RAMANI GURUKKAL MANACHANALLUR POST TRICHY DISTRICT Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition seeking writ of mandamus forbearing the third respondent from interfering with the right of performing poojas by the petitioner or any male member of his family in performing poojas in Sri Neelivaneswarar Thirukkoil, Thiru- ppainjeeli, Trichy District, except without following the due process of law.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that himself and his ancestors as well as his son are performing poojas to the third respondent-Temple without any hindrance from any quarters. According to the petitioner, he is hereditary poojari and he has been performing the poojas after the death of his father till 12.9.2001. Further case of the petitioner is that as per the scheme framed on 1.1.1930, he is entitled to perform poojas from 16th to 30th of every month. He has deputed his son to perform the poojas. After the first week of April, 2006, he was not allowed to perform the poojas. Further case of the petitioner is that they are the hereditary Gurukkals performing pooja as per the said scheme and hence, seeks for writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with his right of performing poojas.

(3.) DRAWING the attention of the Court to the averments in the counter affidavit, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner's father has joined Boominatha- samy Temple and the petitioner was also appointed as Archakar in the said Boominatha- samy Temple, Manachanallur and receiving salaries. It is further submitted that as per Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"), no person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy, merely on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that when the petitioner had abandoned the service in the third respondent-Temple and is serving another Temple, cannot claim any right to perform poojas in the third respondent-Temple.