B.JAGANNATH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.B.Jagannath, a practicing Advocate, has sought for a writ of mandamus, to direct respondents 3 and 4 to perform Thirupani Audit Special audit, Land Audit, Jewels Audit, Idols Audit, Accounts Audit (including Annual Verification of Register of temples vide Section 29-31 of the HR and CE Act) of all the temples both listed and Non - listed which are coming under the direct and exclusive administrative control of the Inspectors (Respondents 5-19) and Assistant Commissioners (Respondents 20- 22) in Salem Zone of HR and CE Department from Fasili Year 2008 onwards till date and submit the Individual Audit reports before this Court within a reasonable time frame to be this Hon'ble Court and take necessary further action including penal action if necessary based on the said Audit Objections in the Audit Reports submitted before this Court against the guilty officials of the HR and CE Department more specifically the Inspectors and also Assistant Commissioners in Office from Fasli Year 2006 till date in accordance with law - also based on the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Mrinalini Padhi Puri Jagannath Temple case vide W.P.(Civil) 649 of 2018 by order dated 05.07.2018.

(2.) On the basis of the averments and material on record, Mr.B.Jagannath, petitioner-in-person, made submissions and also relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinalini Padhi Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 785, sought for issuance of notice. However, when attention of the petitioner was pointed out to the replies, given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that if the petitioner is desirous of getting information mentioning about any particular temple and if the petitioner submits an application to that effect, it would be possible to provide information and when the petitioner was also informed that the decision made in Mrinalini Padhi Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 785, relied on by him, cannot be taken as a precedent for the matter that it is restricted only to Jagannath Temple at Puri, Orissa, Mr.B.Jagannath, petitioner-in-person, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

(3.) Placing on record the above, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that no leave is granted to file a fresh writ petition for the same relief on the same cause. No Costs.