SABANAYAGAR TEMPLE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petitioner - Secretary of Podhu Dikshidar challenges the final order passed by the Government dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.114 of HR & CE Act. The impugned order of the Government confirms the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE dated 31.7.1987 appointing Executive Officer forSabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram under Sec.45 (1) of HR & CE Act.

(2.) ADMINISTRATION ofSabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram has been the subject matter of litigation for about a century. Dispute relating to administration of temple has had chequered career. For the understanding of contentious points raised, it is necessary to briefly refer to the earlier litigations and the background.

(3.) ONBEHALF of the Writ Petitioner, Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has made an elaborate submissions inter alia contending that the direction of the Court in W.P.No.5638/1982 to issue fresh show cause notice was not kept in view. Learned Senior Counsel inter alia made the following submissions:-"Once the Court directed the Government to consider the matter on merits, the Authority should have elaborately enquired into merits of the matter. Neither the Commissioner nor the Government had gone into question of mismanagement."Before appointment of Executive Officer, Sec.45 does require issuance of show cause notice. Unless there is enquiry and finding, the administration of the temple by Podhu Dikshidars cannot be interfered with."As per the decision in 1952 I MLJ 557, the temple is a denominational temple and the Writ Petitioner derived its right from its constitution and Petitioner is entitled to the protection under Art.26 of Constitution of India."In view of Sec.107 of HR & CE Act, provisions of the Act are not to affect the rights of the religious denomination."Appointment of Executive Officer is an interference with the religious affairs and the same is violative of Art.226 of Constitution of India.