T RAMESH BABU Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person as well as Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal during the time of admission and is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order passed by the first respondent as per his proceedings No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka. No.7160/2006/A2 dated 09.03.2009, whereby the second respondent was appointed as a Thuckkar for A/M Deivaparai Bala Dhandayudhapani and A/M Prathyangira Devi Temple at Narasingam, Othakadai and directed the petitioner to hand over charge to the appointee. Factual Matrix: Petitioner 's Version:

(3.) WHILE so, the first respondent inspected the Temple during January, 2009 and subsequent to his visit, a notice dated 19.01.2009 was issued to the petitioner under Section 49 of the HR & CE Act. In the said notice, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation with regard to certain irregularities, the first and foremost being the non-maintenance of accounts with regard to the income and expenditure of the Temple. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and he also appeared before the first respondent on 02.02.2009. In the said meeting, the petitioner explained to the first respondent the factual position. However, the first respondent, as per communication dated 23.02.2009, informed the petitioner that the explanation submitted by him was not acceptable and as such, he was asked to comply with the directions of the HR & CE Department by submitting the accounts. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a reply on 07.03.2009. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in its proper perspective, the first respondent has issued the impugned order dated 09.03.2009 appointing the second respondent as Thuckkar for the Temple. As per the said order, the second respondent was appointed as Thuckkar to administer the Temple and on the strength of the said order, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to hand over the affairs of the Temple at 11.00 a.m. on 17.03.2009. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 09.03.2009 on the file of the first respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition. Submissions: