Sri Sabhanayagar Temple,Chidambaram v. The State of Tamil Nadu

dated 02.02.2009 made in M.P. No.2 of 2006 and M.P. No.1 of 2008 inwrit petition No.18248 of 2006.2. 'Iswara' as Lord Siva is generally worshipped in aparticular form known as 'Linga'. The Word 'Linga' in Sanskritmeans a symbol. If all forms in the creation were put togetherthat would form an indefinable form which is symbolised by 'Linga'.3. The vedas reduce all forms to five constituent elementscalled the "pancha mahabutas", viz., five great elements, they are"Akasa-Space; Vayu-Air; Agni-Fire; Apah-Water and prithivi-Earth".There are five temples in India where Lord Siva is invoked in eachof the five elements. At Chidambaram temple, Lord Siva isworshipped as the element of space. At Kalahasdi temple, in AndhraPradesh, sivalingam as well as a lamp with a constant flameimplying the presence of air is worshipped as element of air. AtTiruvannamalai Arunachaleeswara temple, Lord Siva is worshipped asAgni, fire. At Jambukeswara temple located at Tiruvannaikaval, atTiruchirappalli, Lord Siva is worshipped as the element of water.At Kancheepuram, sivalingam is made of earth and is worshipped asthe element of earth.4. The Chidambaram Temple contains an altar which has no idol.In fact, no Lingam exists but a Curtain is hung before a wall, whenpeople go to worship, the curtain is withdrawn to see the 'Lingam'.But the ardent devotee will feel the divinely wonder that Lord Sivais formless i.e., space which is known as "Akasa Lingam".Offerings are made before the curtain. This form of worshippingspace is called the "Chidambara rahasyam", i.e., the secret ofChidambaram. The Chidambaram Temple is also famous for its deity,Lord Nataraja, the "dancing Siva". This temple was built withGranites in an area of about 40 acres. It has massive high wallswith four towers (Rajagopurams) in all four directions. There is apond called "Sivaganga Theertham" having measured about 175 x 100feet. There are 108 Bharathanatya models (dance postures) fromNatya Sasthra fixed in the Rajagopurams.5. Of the five temples of Siva, when all four ancient sacredSiva Temples are under proper care and efficient administration ofthe Board, the Podhu Dikshidars at Chidambaram Sabhanayagar Templealone are fighting with no end against the Board since 1885, andthereby reducing the great ancient Sri Sabhanayagar templefinancially crunched and the temple's unique & architecturalstructures left unattended due to this endless court proceedings.6. As early as in 1885, a suit was filed by the Dikshidars ofSri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram (hereinafter referred to as'temple' for short) raising a question as to whether the temple atChidambaram is a public institution or private temple. The firstnative Judge of British India Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muthuswani Ayersitting with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shephard, in the judgment dated17.03.1890 in A.S.No.108 and 159 of 1888 declared the temple as aplace of public worship from time immemorial in the presidency andaccordingly held that the Board has got jurisdiction to frame https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scheme under section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Actof 1923, (Act I of 1925). This is seen in an old judgment reportedin 1939 (2) MLJ 11 (Ponnuman Dikshitar Vs. The Board ofCommissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras). 7. The second controversial question which arose forconsideration by the Division Bench of this court under section 62of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act (11 of 1927), was alsoanswered therein by precisely holding even in the year 1939, morethan 160 years back, that once the Board takes action suo motounder section 62, even though, it may ultimately find that therewas no mismanagement, nevertheless, it can frame a scheme, if it isnecessary for the proper administration of the temple.8. In the year 1927, when the Hindu Religious Endowment Act of1923 (Act I of 1925) came into force, on behalf of the Dikshidarsof the temple, a memorial was submitted to His Excellency theGovernor in Council, Fort St.George, in which they referred to thehistory of the temple, its endowments and the usages obtainingtherein. On that basis, the Podhu Dikshidars requested theGovernment to grant exemption to the temple from the operation ofthe Act by virtue of the power under section 2 of the said Act.This request of the appellant was granted by the Government inG.O.No.3750 (L. and M.) dated 28th August 1926, exempting thetemple, from the operation of provision of Madras Hindu ReligiousEndowments Act (Act I of 1925) except sections 38, 57, 58, 59, 64,65, 66, 69 and 70. Section 38 deals with hereditary trustees;section 57 deals with submission of budgets and annual accounts;sections 58 and 59 related to schemes; sections 64, 65 and 66 tofinance and contribution and sections 69 and 70 to the removal of atrustee and costs.9. In the year 1931 some of the worshippers of the templemoved the Board to frame a scheme and the Board started aproceedings to frame a scheme in O.A.No.644 of 1931, but owing tosome technical defects, the proceedings were dropped. However, inview of frequent complaints, the Board took up the matter suo motuin O.A.No.73/1932 and settled a scheme on 08.05.1933. 10. The scheme directed the establishment of Hundials forcollections of offerings and the introduction of the chit systemfor Archana. The Podhu Dikshidars immediately instituted a suit inOS.No.16 of 1933 in the District Court, South Arcot, questioningthe scheme.11. The learned District Judge in the year 1936 itselfconfirmed the correctness of the scheme with a slight modificationby a decree dated 09.09.1936. In the said scheme, the trusteeshipwas vested in the Podhu Dikshidars. The managing committee wasenjoined to appoint a manager subject to the approval of the Boardon salary basis, and to establish hundials for the deposit ofvoluntary and compulsory offerings and also to fix the rates forthe performance of archana and special worship. Their duties weredefined under the scheme. They were required to lease out temple https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ properties invariably by public auction. They are bound to maintainaccounts and the Board was authorised to appoint one or more of theworshippers as Honarary Trustees who shall attend to the inspectionof the accounts, ascertain whether the Kattalais are beingperformed regularly and bring to the notice of the managingcommittee, any irregularities in such matters. The committee wasrequired to prepare a list of jewels and submit a copy of the sameto the Board. 12. During the pendency of the suit and before the judgmentwas pronounced by the District Court, the exemption granted in 1926was annulled and the Board attempted to notify the temple byproceedings dated 01.05.1936, under the Act. A Division Bench ofthis Court, having seen that a scheme was framed in 1933 andproceedings relating to this notification were pending in DistrictCourt, directed the Board to drop the proceedings to notify thetemple and accordingly, the said proceedings were dropped. 13. In the year 1951, since mounting pressures came fromvarious worshippers and public to notify this temple, the Boardonce again, after hearing objections from the Podhu Dikshidars byorder dated 21.03.1951, decided to notify the temple as they weresatisfied that a case for such a step was made out. Again, anappeal was preferred before the Full Board and it was disposed ofby an order of the Full Board dated 11.7.1951. 14. This was immediately followed by notification dated31.08.1951 and the Government also approved the proposed action ofthe Board for appointment of Executive Officer and issued anotification dated 28.08.1951. Under the new Act, the Governmentpublished the notification declaring the institution to be subjectto the provision of Chapter VI of the Act.15. The order of the Board in the first instance deciding tonotify the temple proceeded on the following grounds :(i)that though there was a scheme already framed by the Boardand finalised by the Court in 1933, it came into force on 1stJune 1939, the register of the jewels was not maintained andwas not made available for the inspection of the officers ofthe Board;(ii)that the temple was in a bad state of repair; (iii)that the Dikshitars did not take steps to enforce thePodhu Kattalais;(iv)that no steps were taken to recover the possession of theTiruvilakku manyam lands;(v)that chit system for archanas was not introduced; (vi)that the vacant sites of the temple were not leased outproperly; (vii)that the electrical lighting arrangements in the templewere insufficient; (viii)that the drains around the temple and inside the shrineswere not kept in a sanitary condition; (ix)that the D.C.B was not maintained and so on which are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enumerated seriatum in the annexure to the Board's Orderdated 21.3.1951.16.These objections were not at all answered by the Dikshidarsin their reply. Therefore, the Full Board and the Boardwhich considered the matter in the first instance, agreed inconcluding that there were acts of mis-management establishedwhich necessitated notification of the temple.17. In the second round of litigation. in view of mal-administration and mis-management of the funds, and also themovable and immovable properties of about several hundred acres ofland, of course, on the complaints made by some of the PodhuDikshidars, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.No.894,Rural Welfare Department, dated 28.08.1951 declaring the temple asPublic Temple. In order to enforce the provisions of the Act, thetemple was notified under Chapter VI(A) under section 65 of theAct. Once again, the said G.O. was challenged in Writ PetitionsNos.379 and 380 of 1951 by some of the Dikshidars and thenotification was quashed by the judgment dated 13.12.1951. 18. After three decades, once again the problem of mis-management was brought to the notice of the Government by severalworshippers. The mismanagement pointed out were - non-accountingof gold articles received as 'kaanikkai' to the temple; that non-accounting of gold ingots coins worth Rs.2.2 lakhs kept in theKaruvoolam (Treasury) and detected by the Assistant Commissioner inthe presence of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram andDeputy Superintendent; that there was also loss of 860 grams ofGold in melting the gold jewels; that the donations andcontributions given in the name of temple were not properlyutilised for the purpose for which it was donated; and that therewere misappropriation of huge Hundial moneys donated by lakhs ofworshippers visiting the temple everyday.19. In view of several complaints touching upon the mis-management and mis-handling of temple properties - both movable andimmovable, the Government issued notice in R.C.No.52754/1982/B6dated 20.07.1982 to the secretary of the Podhu Dikshidars pointingout the above irregularities in the administration of the templeand its properties and the proposal to appoint Executive Officer.As usual, the Podhu Dikshidars again challenged the said notice byway of filing W.P. No.5638 of 1982 before the High Court, Madras.The learned single Judge of this Court having seen that no showcause notice was given, directed the parties concerned to treat thenotice dated 20.07.1982 as show cause notice and not as a decisionand accordingly ordered the Writ Petition directing the PodhuDikshidars to give proper explanations to the said show causenotice. 20. Pursuant to the said direction, the Secretary of PodhuDikshidars have filed their bald reply on 09.01.1984, withoutanswering any of the specific allegations made therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner. One ofthe contentions raised by the Podhu Dikshidars was that theappointment of Executive Officer would be interfering with theirConstitutional rights guaranteed under Article 26 of theConstitution of India. However, the Commissioner after affordingfull opportunity to both parties and after taking note of theserious lapses on the part of the Podhu Dikshidars in not properlyaccounting of the revenue of the temple, movable and immovableproperties, has passed the order dated 31.07.1987 appointingExecutive Officer. It is pointed out that the appointment ofExecutive Officer is only to look after the administration of thetemple and the management of the properties alone and that will notmean interference with the rights of Dikshidars relating toreligious practices in the temple. The Executive Officer assumedthe charge of the temple on 10.08.1987. Aggrieved by that orderdated 31.07.1987, W.P.No.7843 of 1987 was filed before this Court.When the matter came up for consideration, though this Courtdeclined to grant stay of the appointment of Executive Officer, butgranted stay of Rule 3 which gives powers and duties of theExecutive Officer. 21. The Writ Petition filed in the year 1987 challenging theappointment of Executive Officer was taken up in 1997, after 10years, and during this interregnum period, in view of the staygranted, the Podhu Dikshidars were in full enjoyment of the templemanagement and administration. When the learned Single Judgeindicated to the Writ Petitioner/appellant to challenge thecorrectness of the order appointing the Executive Officer by way ofRevision under Section 114 of Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, the same was opposed by the petitioner/appellantherein by objecting that more than 10 years had been lapsed, andtherefore, going back before the Revisional Authority would notserve their purpose. Therefore, the learned Single Judge afterconsidering the matter afresh came to the conclusions that the WritPetitioner/appellant herein are in possession of several hundredacres of land belonging to the temple, collected rents from thetenants, but they have not accounted all the lease amounts eitherto the Executive Officer or to the Court, as directed, which meansthat the offerings made by devotees were swallowed by them and thegold articles and jewels belonging to the deity were not properlyaccounted; that the donations received from the worshippers havenot been properly accounted, that the direction of the Court thatevery three months end or quarterly end, they have to account forthe money, offerings and gold jewellery of the temple, submit aregular account to the Executive Officer, has not been compliedwith by the appellant and dismissed the Writ Petition. The learnedsingle Judge further held that it could be detrimental to thedevotees and Public in interfering with the order of appointing theExecutive Officer, who was appointed for better management andeffective administration of the temple. Aggrieved by that order,the Podhu Dikshidars/ appellant herein filed W.A.No.145 of 1997.When the Writ Appeal was finally taken up on 01.11.2004, nearlyseven years from the date of disposal of the Writ Petition, smartlya peculiar prayer, diametrically opposed to what was argued before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned single Judge, was placed before the Division Benchpraying that the Writ Petitioner/appellant herein wanted to file aRevision petition before the Government under section 114 of the HR& CE Act. It is to be noted that the Podhu Dikshidars wereenjoying the benefit of interim order granted during the pendencyof the Writ Petition as well as in the Writ Appeal. 22. The Division Bench had allowed the prayer of WritPetitioner/appellant herein to go back before the RevisionalAuthority by setting aside the order of the learned single Judgepassed on merits, however the Division Bench directed the PodhuDikshidars to submit periodical accounts to the Executive Officer.23. When the Revision Petition was taken up by the RevisionalAuthority on 09.05.2006 by noting that the Podhu Dikshidars fromthe date of the appointment of Executive Officer did not care tocooperate with the Executive Officer and further noting that thePodhu Dikshidars miserably failed even to comply with the order ofthe Division Bench directing them to submit periodical accounts tothe Executive Officer, dismissed the Revision Petition on merits.Aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Authority, the PodhuDikshidars again initiated another round of proceedings by filingWrit Petition No.18248 of 2006 under Article 226 Constitution ofIndia, challenging the order passed by the Government of TamilNadu in G.O. Ms.No.168 dated 09.05.2006. During the pendency ofthe writ petition, respondents 3 and 4 got themselves impleaded inthe writ petition. The Writ Court, after hearing the parties andafter examination of various allegations of mis-management,dismissed the writ petition by reason of the order impugned in WritAppeal No.181 of 2009. The order of impleadment of respondents 3and 4 is challenged in Writ Appeals Nos.182 and 183 of 2009.24. The learned single judge after extensively discussingvarious aspects, allowed the impleading applications filed byrespondents 3 and 4 viz., Mr.P.Sathiyavel Murugan andMr.U.Arumugasamy. Since the learned Single Judge has exercised thediscretionary power in allowing the impleading application filed byrespondents 3 and 4, this court declines to interfere with the wellexercised discretionary power of the Writ Court. 25. Before us, three petitioners have filed four petitions forimpleadment. M.P. No.2 of 2009 is filed by Dr.Subramania Swamy andM.P. No.4 of 2009 is filed by V.M.S.Chandrapandian for impleadingthem as party respondents in W.A. No.181 of 2009. M.Ps. Nos.1 inW.A. No.182 of 2009 and M.P. No.2 of 2009 in W.A. No.183 of 2009are filed for impleading International Sri Vaishnava DharmaSasrakshna Society, represented by its President SwamiGovindaramanuja Dasa, as party respondent in Writ Appeals Nos.182and 183 of 2009.26. The petitioner in M.P. No.2 of 2009 Dr.Subramania Swamyclaims that as the respondents 3 and 4 have already been impleadedby the learned single Judge, there would be no impediment forimpleading him also as a party, he being a champion of public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cause. The petitioner in M.P. No.4 of 2009 V.M.S.Chandrapandian isa former Chairman of Chidambaram Municipality and was also a Memberof the Temple Trust and well aware of the activities of theappellant. The petitioner in M.P. No.1 in W.A. No.182 of 2009 andM.P. No.2 of 2009 in W.A. No.183 of 2009 International SriVaishnava Dharma Sasrakshna Society, represented by its PresidentSwami Govindaramanuja Dasa claims that as Lord Govindaraja PerumalSannadhi is also in the temple, they are interested in the lis andthey want themselves to be impleaded as party respondents.27. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for theimpleading parties and the other counsel in respect of impleadment,and having regard to the fact that respondents 3 and 4 have beenimpleaded in the writ petition itself, and also having regard tothe nature of the lis, which is touching upon the religioussentiments of devotees of Lord Nataraja and Lord GovindarajaPerumal, we are of the view that strict or rigid rule of locusstandi of the proposed respondents need not be put against them andthey may be allowed to put forth their case which would, in a way,throw some light on the controversy. That would further the causeof justice. Hence, the petitioners in all the four petitions can beimpleaded as party respondents and the Miscellaneous petitions areordered accordingly.28. Dr. Subramania Swamy, in his submission, after stating asto how he is interested in the lis, has averred about the historyand administration of the temple and also the earlier judgment ofthis Court in Shirur Mutt’s case. The averments are materially thereplica of the averments and arguments made by the appellant. Onthat ground he prayed for allowing the appeal. 29. The other impleaded parties, apart from stating abouttheir association with the temple for a long number of years,averred about the mis-management alleged to have been committed bythe appellant and prayed for sustaining the order impugned.30. The learned senior counsel Mr.Rajagopalan appearing forthe Writ Petitioner/Appellant herein submitted the followingarguments :a)The Judgment In W.P. Nos.379 and 380 of 1951 dated13.12.1951 is binding on the State Government and therefore theappointment of Executive Officer for the temple by order dated31.07.1987 is illegal.b) The judgment of this court dated 13.12.1951 quashing theproceedings of the Government holding the order appointingExecutive Officer is violative of right of Podhu Dikshidars willbind the respondents as Res Judicata. The same is not considered bythe learned writ court. Therefore, the order of the learned SingleJudge should be reversed.c) That the proceedings of the Government appointing theExecutive Officer to the temple is against Articles 25 and 26 ofthe Constitution of India, since the appointment of Executive https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer is directly interfering the right of administration ofPodhu Dikshidars and the temple, andd) That the order dated 31.07.1987 appointing ExecutiveOfficer and confirmed by the Government by G.O.Ms.No.168, dated09.05.2006 is without jurisdiction and hence the Writ Appeal shouldbe allowed.31. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Ramasamy submitted the following points:The principles of res judicata under section 11 of the Code ofCivil Procedure will not apply to this case. He further contendedthat the question as to whether the Podhu Dikshidars can be termedas 'denomination' was not the issue in the earlier case decided bythis Court. The appellant herein neither pleaded nor admittedanywhere earlier in the proceedings that the Podhu Dikshidars isreligious denomination or the temple is a denominational one.Therefore, the principle of res judicata will not apply in thepresent writ jurisdiction. He further argued for sustaining theorder of the learned single Judge in respect of the other twoissues for the reasons stated in the judgment impugned.32. Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, for theappellant, Mr.S.Ramasamy, Additional Advocate General appearing forrespondents 1 and 2 in the appeals, and other counsel, and perusedthe materials available on record.33. Now let us proceed to consider the points in issue, asraised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in Writ AppealNo.181 of 2009. First, let us consider the issues in respect of theappellant's contention that the Judgment in writ petitions Nos.379and 380 of 1951 dated 13.12.1951 (Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiarof Sri Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. Board, Madras,1952 (1) MLJ 557) is binding on the State Government and thereforethe appointment of Executive Officer is illegal and the contentionthat the said judgment of this Court dated 13.12.1951 will bind therespondents as Res Judicata. 34. The principle of res judicata has been incorporatedstating that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which thematter directly and substantially in issue in the former suitbetween the same party when the former suit has been heard andfinally decided by the Court. 35. The primary issue under consideration in the Shirur Mutt'scase was as to the validity of the notification in G.O. Ms. No.894,Rural Welfare dated 28.08.1951 notifying the temple under ChapterVI of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. Whiledealing with the said question, the Division Bench has referred tothe history of the temple as well as the appellant as a group ofpersons, who have been serving in the temple as archakas. 36. The question as to whether the Podhu Dikshidars aredenomination or not, had not strictly fallen for consideration ofthe Court in that case. The judgment discusses the nature and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ character of the sect of Podhu Dikshidars. Since the character wasnot directly or substantially in issue in that case, the principleof res judicata would not operate. 37. In the judgment, the Division Bench proceeded to observeas follows:-"Looking at from the point of view, whether the PodhuDikshitars are a denomination, and whether their right as adenomination is to any extent infringed within the meaningof Article 26 it seems to us that it is a clear case, inwhich it can safely be said that the Podhu Dikshitars whoare Smartha Brahmins, form and constitute a religiousdenomination or in any event, a section thereof."This observation, by itself, cannot be regarded as a findingrecorded on the issue as to whether the temple is a denominationtemple. That issue was not directly and substantially in issue inthe Shirur Mutt's case. In the same judgment, it was observedthat though the position of Dikshidars is analogous to that ofMadathipathi, they would not have the same dominion over the incomeof the properties of the temple which the Madathipathi enjoys inrelation to the income from the mutt and its properties. 38. In the earlier judgment of this Court in the case ofPonnuman Dikshidar, 1939 II MLJ 11, it has been held that thetemple was not a private temple, but a public temple. There was aspecific finding in that judgment, which read as follows :"So early as 1885, when the question was raised in asuit by the Dikshidars, Muthuswamy Aiyar and Shephard, JJ,in their judgment dated 17th March, 1890, in A.S. No.108 and159 of 1888 observed that it was not denied that theinstitution was being used as a place of public worship fromtime immemorial and that there was no particle of evidencein support of the assertion that this ancient temple of SriNataraja was the private property of the Dikshidars. Evennow it is not denied that this temple is held to be verysacred by all the saivites in their presidency and isreported to as a place of public worship.39. Subsequently, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court inthe case of Dargah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali, 1962 1 SCR 383 :AIR 1961 SC 1402, held that, "the words "Religious Denominations"must take their colour from the word religion and this is so theexpression "Religious Denomination" must also satisfy threeconditions:1. Collection of religious faith system of belief whichis conducive to the spiritual well being, i.e., commonfaith:2. Common organisation.3. a designation by a distinctive name.The Supreme Court has given a "litmus test" consisting of threeconditions to be satisfied for calling any sect as a religiousdenomination, and any temple as a denomination, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

40. The issue raised in the present Writ Appeal has beentested by several judgments in various proceedings emanating from1932 onwards. In the year 1933 a suit was filed in Suit No.16 of1933 by some of the Podhu Dikshidars on the file of the DistrictCourt South Arcot, Challenging the boards order No.997, dated08.05.1933 under Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927 on the ground that thetemple is an absolute private property of Podhu Dikshidars andoutside the scope of Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1927.The District Judge rejected the claim that the temple being aprivate temple and passed a scheme and the same was settled in O.A.No.73 of 1932. On appeal filed by the Dikshidars in A.S. No.306 of1936 this High Court, while confirming the scheme with somemodification has affirmed the findings of the fact that the templeis a public temple and the same was reported in 1939 (2) MLJ 11.41. The learned Single Judge, in the present impugned order,has dealt with the issue by referring various judgments of the ApexCourt. One such case is Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi ViswanathTemple, Varanasi v. State of U.P., 1997 (4) SCC 606 wherein it washeld by the Supreme Court, believers of Shiva form of worship arenot a denominational sect or section of Hindu, but they are Hindusas such.42. It has been further admitted by the Podhu Dikshidarsthemselves that this temple is meant for both Saivites and theVaishnavites. In Sri Sabhanayagar Temple two main deities namelySri Natarajar and Vishnu by name Sri Govindaraja Perumal areinstalled. Both the temples have separate sanctum sanctorium,separate bali Peedam, separate Gopuram, separate Dwajasthambham(kodi maram). When both the sacred temples are situated within onecampus having distinct and separate religious rituals and practiceof religious functions and both the places of worship are open topublic, the temple is a public temple. An another historical factto be born in mind is, out of 108 holy places of Vaishnavite namely"Dhivyadesam", Sri Sabhanayagar temple at Chidambaram where LordGovindaraja Perumal is installed, is one among the 108 Divyadesam.Historical records also reveal that in praise of Lord GovindarajaPerumal, two great saints namely Kulasekara Azhwar and ThirumangaiAzhwar have visited these ancient temple and also sung severalreligious songs and they are all seen in Nalayira Divyaprabandam.43. Vaishnavam and Saivam are considered by Hindus as twoeyes of Hindu Religion. Therefore, when two temples of two faithsare situated in one single campus and when two religious groups arecoming every day to offer prayer to these two deities Lord Vishnuand Lord Shiva, it cannot be held that this temple is meant foronly one sect of people, and therefore, the arguments of theappellant/Podhu Dikshidars claiming that the temple is a religiousdenomination belonging to Saivites alone cannot be accepted forthe simple reason that if such an argument is accepted, it is likeharming one eye while protecting another eye and further such anapproach will seriously work against the sentiments of Vaishnavite. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44.The observation of the earlier Division Bench in ShirurMutt's case, are not in consonance with the three testsenunciated by the Supreme Court in various judgmentsmentioned above, the learned single judge rightly said thatthe observation of Division Bench in Shirur Mutt's case maynot have any significance to a century old dispute and hasrightly held on the basis of the judgment of the apex Courtthat the observation of Division Bench in Shirur Mutt's casehas no relevance to the present legal status of this case.Particularly, the observation of the Division Bench will nothold good in the light of the decision of the Supreme Courtin Dargah Committee's case, AIR 1961 SC 1402, AdiVisheshwara of Kasi Vishwanath temple, 1997 (4) SCC 606, andSri Jaganath Temple Puri Management committee Vs. ChinthamaniKuntis, 1997 (8) SCC 42245. Hence, the said judgment in Shirur mutt's case eventhough between the same parties, being primarily on adifferent question, would not bar the adjudication of thecharacter of the Podhu Dikshidars as a sect or the nature andthe character of the temple and thus the principles of resjudicata would clearly not apply to the facts of the presentcase.46.Further, the judgment could be binding between the partiesso long as there is no change of law effected by Parliamentor State Legislature or as long as there is no interventionby a judicial order. The power conferred on variousauthorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 cannot be a barby the judgment rendered in the year 1952, where the matterdirectly and substantially in issue was of a fundamentallydifferent character.47. The principle of res judicata and its applicability havebeen considered by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, theconspectus of which could be summarized as follows : The doctrineof res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure : it cannot beexalted to the status of a legislative direction between theparties so as to determine the question relating to theinterpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Courtfinally between them, even though no question of fact or mixedquestion of law and fact and relating to the right in disputebetween the parties has been determined thereby. A matter in issuebetween the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied bythe other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends uponproof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A purequestion of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right,cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that aprevious decision is res judicata, it is meant that the rightclaimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed incontest between the same parties. A previous decision of acompetent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right andthe relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previousdecision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decisionon law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on whichthe right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as resjudicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, ifthe cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as inthe previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action isdifferent, nor when the law has since the earlier decision beenaltered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relatesto the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlierproceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid atransaction which is prohibited by law. Where the law is alteredsince the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operateas res judicata between the same parties: Tarini CharanBhattacharjee case, ILR 56 Cal 723. It is obvious that the matterin issue in a subsequent proceeding is not the same as in theprevious proceeding, because the law interpreted is different.Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates tothe jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Courtsanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule ofres judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precludedfrom challenging the validity of that order under the rule of resjudicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of theland. Vide Three Judge Bench's decision of the Apex Court in thecase of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy,(1970) 1 SCC 613. 48. In view of the above enunciation of law, we are of theconsidered view that the points as to the binding nature of theShirur Mutt's case and res judicata put forth by the appellantfail. Thus points 1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.49. The second question is as to whether the order ofappointment of Executive Officer for the administration and forproper maintenance of the properties of the temple would infringethe right of the appellant under Article 26 of the Constitution ofIndia. 50. It is necessary to take a glance of Article 26 of theConstitution of India:"Subject to public order, morality and health, everyreligious denomination or any section thereof shall havethe right-(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religiousand charitable purposes;(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property;and(d)to administer such property in accordance with law"51.From the above, it is clear that as regards the affairs ofthe temple in the matter of religion, the right of managementto a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right, whichno legislature can take away. On the other hand, as regards https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the administration of the properties, which a religiousdenomination is entitled to own and acquire, it is the rightto administer such properties, but only in accordance withlaw, meaning thereby, the State can regulate theadministration of the property of the religious denominationby means of law validly enacted. To put it otherwise, it isthe religious denomination, which has been given the right toadminister those properties in accordance with law. (VideCommissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Shri LaxmindraTheertha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282).52. Regarding the evidence with regard to establishment andmaintenance of the temple, there are sufficient clinchingevidences to show that the temple was not established by theappellant. The appellant Podhu Dikshidars themselves haveadmitted in the application filed before the Government, thatthe temple structures, as they exist now, were built from 10th- 13th century mainly by the Chozha Kings and by Pandya Kings,who were ardent devotees of Lord Nataraja and thrown open forpublic worship. Several stone inscriptions will standtestimony to that fact. All these features will clearlyestablish the fact that it is not established by theappellant. The second interesting part of their admissionis also very important. In the very same Revision Petition,in Paragraph 5 again they admitted as follows :" It is also historical fact that Vaishnavite deitySri Thillai Govindaraja was worshipped as a "ParivaraDeity" installed in a small Sannadhi on the sides aroundthe main shrine of Lord Nataraja and poojas were done toit by the Dikshidars themselves, known as ThillaiMoovayiravar or Thillai Vazh Anthanar. Some of the songsrecited by Thirumangai Azhwar and Kulasekara Azhwar willprove this facts. It is also history that due to certainconflicts between the Saivites and Vaishnavites the idolof Thillai Govindaraja was removed in or about 13thcentury and later during the rule of Vijayanagara kingsone of their chieftains again reconstructed the SriThillai Govindaraja Sannadhi, after which (17th century)the small Sannidhi in its present form has come to stayand poojas are being performed by a separate sect ofVaishnavite priests."53.These two important historical records indisputably provethe fact that this temple was established by King Chozha andKing Pandyas and the ruler of Vijayanagaram between 10th and13th century further the historical records reveal that notonly saivite but also vaishnavite are worshippers of theirrespective Gods, in one temple which further prove anothervital fact that this temple at Chidambaram is not exclusivelymeant for saivite alone, but also worshipped by Vaishavites.Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the protection underArticle 26 cannot be availed in as such, as it was notexclusively established and maintained by one group of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ people.54."The phrase, "establish and maintain" cannot be separated.It shall be read conjunctively. Only when a religious denominationor a Section thereof established a religious institution, it getsthe right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion withrespect to that institution. This principle has been laid down bythe Supreme Court in the case of Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR1968 SC 662. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the templeis a denominational temple, can be accepted only if the appellantproves that they established the religious institution and thatthey are part of a religious denomination and that they areadministering the same continuously.55. This Court need not search for any other evidence to reachthe conclusion whether the temple was built or founded by theappellant. In view of the admitted statements made by the appellantas above, it is proved beyond doubt neither the appellant nor theirpredecessors or forefathers were founders of the temple, andentitled to have the benefit of protection under Article 26 of theConstitution of India. A three-Judge Bench judgment of the ApexCourt in the case of Adi Visheswara, cited supra, held that if thetemple is built or established or founded by some people andsubsequently others started managing the temple cannot be allowedto complain that the temple's property is interfered by action oftaking over by the Government for a reason that the action does notoffend the right of their livelihood guaranteed under Article 21.In this Judgment, it has also been held that the State can alwaysstep into prevent mis-use, mis-management and irreligious acts,actions and conduct, and to regulate proper and efficientmanagement and administration, performance of all religiousservices, ceremonies and rituals in systematic and organized mannerby competent persons on the religious side of performing ceremonieswithout interruption. Therefore, it is clear that temple is not adenominational temple and therefore, in the event of anymismanagement or financial irregularities, the State can alwaysinterfere with the mal-administration, in which event, the memberof the appellant cannot complain that their rights guaranteed underArticles 25 and 26 of the Constitution have been infringed byappointment of Executive Officer. It has been held in a number ofcases that the practice of religious faith according to tenets ofHindu religion, custom and usage stand protected by the Act. Butthe secular management of the religious affairs in the temple issecular part. The legislature has power to interfere with andregulate proper and efficient management of the temple and thisaspect of the question has been elaborately considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bhurinath v. State ofJammu and Kashmi, JT 1997 (1) SCC 546 as well as in the case ofAdi Visheswara of Kashi Viswanath Temple, JT 1997 (4) SC 124. 56. In Adi Visheswara case, it has been held that, "Article 26 requires to be carefully scrutinized toextend protection and it must be confined to suchreligious practices as are an essential and integral part https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of it and no other. The management of the properties wasin the hands of the officers. Article 26 does not createrights in any denomination or a section which it neverhad. It merely safeguards and guarantees the continuanceof a right which such denomination or the section had.If the denomination never had the right to manageproperty in favour of a denominational institution as perreasonable terms on which the endowment was created, itcannot be had to have it. It had not acquired the saidright as a result of Article 26 and that the practice andthe custom prevailing in that behalf which obviously isconsistent with the terms of the endowment should not beignored."57.In the light of the above line of decisions, the onlyconclusion that could be reached is the appellant are notentitled to the protection under Article 26 of theConstitution of India. Thus, the third point is also answeredagainst the appellant.58. In respect of mis-management, the Government has justifiedthe appointment of Executive Officer by citing the followingreasons: i)The Podhu Dikshidars miserably failed to maintain and managea huge extent of about 400 acres of cultivable lands donatedby various devotees in the name of Sri Sabhanayagar Temple,Chidambaram.ii)Non accounting of gold ingots and gold coins worth of Rs.2.2lakhs kept in the Karuvolum deducted by AssistantCommissioner, Cuddalore in the presence of Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Chidambaram and District Superintendent of Police.iii)There was also loss of 860 grams of Gold in melting the oldjewels.iv)Non accounting of gold article received as donation by thetemple.59. On a complaint at the instance of one Mr.K.NatarajaKunchita Deekshidar on 11.05.1981 alleging many financial, goldplates, gold coins, gold jewels, irregularities in the temple, whenthe Assistant Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. asked the Dikshidars toshow the gold jewels, gold coins etc., for which the PodhuDikshidars refused to show by asking a week's time for productionof the same. However, after such refusal, the AssistantCommissioner searched the relevant place like Almirahs in thetemple, surprisingly, several gold items were recovered. However,the Podhu Dikshidars claiming that the seized gold items areproperties belonged to their family and refused to part with thesame. At the same time, they were not able to prove from whomthese jewels were accepted as gift and no receipts therefor wereshown to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner,after seizure of the above said gold items has found that 4717 gmsof gold were melted and kept in their custody without anypermission from any officers. Still the Assistant Commissioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ found unaccounted gold items and hundreds of silver lamp items like(Kuthu villaku) from the temple Almirahs. 60. By referring to various other complaints of mis-managementand report of Assistant Commissioner (dated 20.07.1982), the thenCommissioner thought it fit to appoint the Executive Officer forproper, better and efficient management of the temple.61.Therefore, a show cause notice was given asking the PodhuDikshidars to give an explanation as to why an ExecutiveOfficer should not be appointed. After receiving the showcause notice, a comprehensive inquiry was conducted by theCommissioner on 15.07.1985, 23.09.1985, 04.11.1985,09.12.1985, 27.01.1986, 31.03.1986, 04.08.1986, 07.10.1986,22.12.1986, 23.02.1987, 31.03.1987, 06.07.1987 and22.07.1987. The Podhu Dikshidars without giving any plausibleexplanation on the alleged mis-management andirregularities, submitted an unacceptable explanations byciting Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, andalso certain decisions given by the Supreme Court of India,in support of their objections to not to appoint ExecutiveOfficer.62. In the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner, thefollowing startling revelations surfaced by surprising all eyeswaiting on this issues :i)The appellant never maintained any accounts either in respectof 400 acres of lands or in respect of Gold offerings, silverofferings, Hundial Offerings, donation of cash, lands andother movable and immovable for ages .ii)The appellant never maintained at any point of time anyaccount fixing the rent and collecting rent payable to thetemple from the tenants of the lands. iii)The appellant had not realised the income due to thetemple. iv)Even huge offerings made to the God by the worshippers havenot been accounted for by them. v)Missing of gold jewels were alarming. Income derived fromvarious stalls in the temple and collection of entrance feesand Dharshan and Aaradhanai fees were seen issued in a pieceof paper without indicating the value of fees. The collectionfor performance of Abishekam and archana have been richlyswindled among all the Podhu Dikshidars.63. It may not be out of place to mention here that thelearned Additional Advocate General demonstrated that three saledeeds dated 15.05.1985, 04.02.1988 and 10.02.1988 have beenexecuted by some of the Podhu Diskhidars alienating some of theproperties, as if they are their ancestral properties, but theadangal extract still stands in the name of the temple. 64. In view of these above startling revelations, theCommissioner came to the conclusion that since the Podhu Dikshidarshave continuously neglected to perform their duty, it has become https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessary to appoint Executive Officer to identify the landsbelonging to temple and several kattalais and set in motion theaction to realise income due to the temple. 65. A similar question came up for consideration before theSupreme Court whether the Mathathipathi are legally bound to managethe accounts and all the personal gift made to the Mathathipathiso as to see those are properly utilized for the purpose of themath in accordance with its objects and propagation of HinduDharma. The apex Court in paragraph 43 of the judgment reported in1996 (8) SCC 705 [Sri Sri Sri Laxmana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh]has ruled that any action taken by the state fastening anobligation on mathadhipathi to maintain accounts of the receipts aspersonal gifts made to him, does not amount to interference withreligion. Equally, in respect of gifts of properties or money madeto the mathadhipathi as gifts intended for the benefit of the math,he is bound under law as trustee, to render accounts for thereceipts and disbursement and cause the accounts in that behalfproduced from time to time before the Commissioner or anyauthorised person in that behalf, whenever so required is part ofadministration of properties of the math and also held that thequestions relating to administration of properties relating to mathor specific endowment are not matters of religion under Article 26(b). They are secular activities though connected with religionenjoined on the Mahant. The intervention of the legislature in thatbehalf is in the interest of the math itself. He is, therefore,enjoined to maintain accounts in the regular course of theadministration and maintenance of the math. Therefore, the ApexCourt has held that introduction or making any amendment in H.R.and C.E. Act, is therefore, permissible statutory interventionunder Articles 25(2) (a) and 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution. 66. This Court in Ponnumani Dikshidar's case, 1939 (2) MLJ 11,had come to a conclusion on similar occasion that the Board canalways take action if it has reason to believe that the temple isbeing mismanaged.67. On a cursory perusal of the materials on record, one can,safely infer that this great ancient temple founded between 10th and13th century by Chozha and Pandya Kings have received by way ofdonations innumerable gifts in the form of lands, gold pieces,gems, silver, cash, grains etc., would indicate that this templewould be one of the richest temples in the country, had there beena proper and efficient administration either by the Board or by thePodhu Dikshidars, atleast from the year 1939, because the recordshows that this temple even now owns more than 400 acres of fertilelands. Had there been a proper administration and management ofthese vast lands with revenue collections from Hundials this templewould have become another richest temple like, Tirumala TirupathiDevasthanam in Andhra Pradesh and Palani Murugan Temple in TamilNadu. Since there has been heavy opposition from the PodhuDikshidars from the year 1885, one reason or the other for takingover the temple administration for serious maladministration, theadministration of the temple could not be toned up, though there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was a scheme in the year 1939. Again it is not known, why theBoard has given up the administration. Be that as it may, the factremains, it has been held by this Court in the year 1939 that ifthere is mis-management, the Board can always take action.68. The Executive Officer so appointed has submitted a list ofdonation received for four days from 05.02.2009 to 08.02.2009 asfollows :Sl.No.DateReceiptNo.Name of the DonarAmount inRs.12/5/0936B.Jayaraman50/-22/5/0937R.Kaviya200/-32/5/0938Dr.Vadivukkarasi300/-42/5/0939T.Jayaseela200/-52/5/0940A.Ramkumar51/-62/5/0941M.Sanjai500/-72/5/0942S.Mohan250/-82/5/0943S.Ramesh Gupta250/-92/5/0944K.Ravi250/-102/5/0945Rajarajan251/-112/5/0946Diviyavani251/-122/5/0947Rajendiran251/-132/5/0948Sundaresan250/-142/5/0949R.Sivakumar250/-152/5/0950K.Rathakrishnan500/-162/5/091B.Jayakumar500/-172/5/092Loganathan500/-182/5/093J.Prabhakaran100/-192/5/094C.Shanmugam100/-202/5/095J.Archana1000/-212/5/096M.Arthi1000/-222/5/097C.Arun Agoram1000/-232/5/098M.Ajet Agoram1000/-242/5/099C.Arjun Agoram1000/-252/6/0910Vijayakumar100/-262/6/0911B.Mani500/-272/6/0912V.Muthu Ganapathy500/-282/6/0913S.Saratha500/-292/6/0914Gnanasekaran500/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.DateReceiptNo.Name of the DonarAmount inRs.302/6/0915Kasinathan500/-312/6/0916Jothilingam500/-322/6/0917G.Devaraj Naidu500/-332/6/0918S.Srinivasa Kumar250/-342/6/0919S.Balathandayutham100/-352/6/0920R.Prabakaran1001/-362/6/0920Srinivasan50/-372/6/0920R.Eniyan50/-382/7/0921K.G.Jayakumar100/-392/7/0922G.SriramThiyagarajan100/-402/7/0923G.Rashina100/-412/7/0924V.Sathiyanathan100/-422/7/0925S.R.Soundararajan250/-432/7/0926K.Govindaraj Babu500/-442/7/0927P.Selvarangam1000/-452/7/0928G.Padmavathi1000/-462/7/0929G.Sriram500/-472/7/0930G.Pavithra500/-482/7/0931S.Kaveri500/-492/7/0932S.Arunkumar500/-502/7/0933P.R.Rajagopal51/-512/8/0934Santhi1000/-522/8/0935Vengaiammal300/-532/8/0936Saravanan500/-542/8/0937M.Saraswathi500/-552/8/0938D.Kumar500/-562/8/0939Jayanthi1000/-572/8/0940K.Lakshmi500/-582/8/0941Arun Prasad500/-592/8/0942D.Pachayappan100/-602/8/0943S.Dilak Gandhi100/-612/8/0944Dr.K.M.Ravichandran3000/-622/8/0945Siva Muruga100/-Total28356/-69. Again he has submitted another list showing the receipt of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ donation received from 09.02.2009 to 12.02.2009 as follows:Sl.No.DateReceiptNo.Name of the DonarAmount inRs.12/9/0946S.Jayaraj50/-22/9/0947S.Saraswathi Chandrasekar101/-32/9/0948S.Subramanian1000/-42/9/0949S.Selvaraju20/-52/9/0950S.Subramanian20/-62/9/0951S.Rajadurai20/-72/9/0952R.Tamilselvan500/-82/9/0953D.Kalpana500/-92/9/0954D.Dinesh500/-102/9/0955D.Mukesh500/-112/9/0956V.Saroja500/-122/9/0957M.Venugopal250/-132/9/0958S.Jagan250/-142/9/0959M.Dhanalakshmi250/-152/9/0960D.Venkatesan250/-162/9/0961P.T.Muthu500/-172/9/0962M.Selvi500/-182/10/0963S.Babu50/-192/10/0964V.Ravichandran500/-202/10/0965K.Perumal500/-212/10/0966C.Murugan250/-222/10/0967D.Selvi250/-232/10/0968V.Paranthamakkannan250/-242/10/0969R.Ramani250/-252/10/0970K.Diwakar250/-262/10/0971S.Parameswara Kurukkal250/-272/10/0972M.Manokaran500/-282/11/0973Gomathy Govindan10/-292/11/0974M.Manimaran500/-302/11/0975P.Shanthi500/-312/11/0976G.Nallammal500/-322/11/0977D.Rajini1000/-332/11/0978D.Arunachalam100/-342/12/0979M.Gomathy10/-352/12/0980Enterprising enterprises200/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.DateReceiptNo.Name of the DonarAmount inRs.362/12/0981S.Ulaganathan100/-372/12/0982K.Mangavu100/-382/12/0983S.Balasubramanian100/-392/12/0984S.Murugan500/-402/12/0985D.Venkateswaran1000/-412/12/0986N.Srilakshmi1000/-422/12/0987Narayanamoorthy500/-432/12/0988Arulmozhi100/-Total15881/-70. That apart, the Executive Officer having seen theimportance of renovating the old beauty of antiquity, architecturaland historical value of the temple, in consultation with the JointCommissioner, H.R & C.E., Department has submitted a proposal forgrant of Rs.50,00,00,000.00/- (Rupees fifty crores) from the 13thFinance Commission to carry out repairs, renovation of East sideentrance, Ornamental work of Thousand Pillar Hall, renovation ofthird Prakaram, reconstruction of Hundred Pillar Mandapam,reconstruction of Subramaniyaswamy Sannathi, construction ofbathroom and toilets, provision for drainage management etc.,Further it is seen that Kumbabishekam of the temple was performedon 11.2.1987 by the Renovation committee. Large scale ofrenovation works were carried out in the temple through theRenovation Committee approved by H.R. & C.E. Department at a costof RS.46 lakhs, out of which Government grants were Rs.20 lakhs anddiversion of funds from other temples were Rs.6 lakhs and publicdonations through sale of tickets were about Rs.20 lakhs. Theperformance of Kumbabishekam of the temple under the guidance ofH.R. & C.E. Department would clearly indicate the interest evincedby the department in proper administration of the temple.71. The order of appointing the Executive Officer byproceedings RC.No.52574/82/L1 dated 05.08.1987 contains Appendixdefining powers and duties to be exercised and performedrespectively by the Executive Officer and the Secretary of PodhuDikshidars. By a bare reading of Appendix, it is seen that theExecutive Officer was put in custody of all immovable, livestocks,grains and other valuables. The Executive Officer shall beresponsible for the collection of all income and money due to theinstitution. The Executive Officer has to function in coordinationwith the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars. In fact, as seen from Rule15, the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars shall operate the BankAccounts. But cheque book and pass book shall remain in the custodyof the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall have separateaccount in his name as provided under Rule 4(b) of these Rules andthe same shall be operated upon by him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

72. Rule 6(A) also makes this clear that the office holdersand servants shall work under the immediate control over theSuperintendence of Executive Officer, subject to the disciplinarycontrol of the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars under section 56 ofthe H.R. & C.E. Act. Thus, it is not as if by the appointment ofExecutive Officer, the Podhu Dikshidars are displaced from thetemple in performance of rituals or administration. Only forbetter management and, for efficient administration of a greatancient temple, it has been stipulated in the rule both theExecutive Officer and Podhu Dikshidars are to function in co-ordination with each other. Therefore, it is very clear that thereis a clear demarcation of the powers to be exercised by theExecutive Officer and Podhu Dikshidars, which could only for betterand efficient administration of the temple.73. Even after the findings of the commissioner of provingthat there has been a large scale mis-appropriation of the templefund, and when the status of immovable properties of 400 acres oftemple land, are continuously in darkness for more than centuries,and the improvements made by the Executive Officer after hisappointment and the further steps taken by him, as stated supra,still if this Court interferes with the appointment of ExecutiveOfficer, this Court would be failing in its duty to safeguard andpreserve the ancient and historical values and importance of thetemple, with the result, the grand old ancient temple standing as atestimony of Hindu Culture and Civilization to the world, would bereduced down to the ground. Consequently, the Podhu Dikshidarswhose livelihood are made out from the temple income would also belost. Point No.4 is also answered against the appellant.74. In view of the reasons in the foregoing paragraphs and inthe light of the decisions referred to above, we are of the viewthat there is no merit in the writ appeal No.181 of 2009 and it isaccordingly dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the reasonsstated for impleadment of parties in paragraphs 24 to 29, the WritAppeals Nos.182 and 183 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs. Theconnected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.kua/tshSd/-Asst. Registrar8.10.2009*Corrected order to be issued.Sd/-Asst Registrar11.12.2009/true copy /Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Tamil Development, Religious and Information Department,To be substituted Fort St. George, Chennai.for the order already despatched.2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai 600 034.1CC to Mr.S.Senthilnathan, Advocate (SR.No.47293)4CC to Mr.R.Sagadevan, Advocate (SR.No.47178)6CC to Ms.K.Bhawatharini, Advocate (SR.No.47046)3CC to Government Pleader (SR.No.47035 to 47037)Judgment inW.As. Nos.181 to 183 of 2009AKR (CO)SS (08.10.2009)