The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes regarding hereditary trusteeship of temples should be decided by the civil court, and the distinction between hereditary trustees and ordinary trustees should be recognized and respected.

JUDGMENT

Krishna S. Dixit, J. - Petitioner claiming to be a hereditary trustee by succession to the temple in question, is complaining in writ jurisdiction against the Resolution dated 21.01.2020 vide Agenda No.17 passed by the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat at Annexure-AA, whereby the said issue has been referred for statutory adjudication. The impugned part of the resolution reads as under:

2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent-Parishat & the 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana have entered appearance through their Panel Counsel; the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and the 3rd respondent-State are represented by the learned AGA; respondent Nos.4 & 5 are ably represented by their private advocate; notice to 8th respondent who happened to be the incumbent of the office of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, was dispensed with vide order dated 14.10.2020. The contesting parties i.e., the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have filed their Statement of Objections on 21.01.2022. The petition is resisted with submissions made in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The net effect of the impugned order is to put the issue of claim of the petitioner to hereditary trusteeship of the temple in question for consideration at the hands of 7th respondent-Nyayadhikarana which is the judicial organ of the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat at the instance of the contesting respondents herein who are only the devotees and not the rival claimants qua the petitioner. Therefore, they had no locus standi to seek such a reference contending that administration of the temple in question was in a bad shape and there was misappropriation of funds of the temple. The claim for better administration of the temple is one thing and the claim for the hereditary trusteeship of the temple is another. This difference which the law recognizes having been casually ignored by the 1st respondent-Rajya Dharmika Parishat, there is an error apparent on the face of record, warranting invalidation of the impugned order. The vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties i.e., respondent Nos.4 & 5 that his clients being devotees of the temple have a vested interest in having due adjudication of the claim for hereditary trusteeship of the petitioner at the hands of the Nyayadhikarana in terms of the impugned resolution of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, is bit difficult to countenance. A devotee may arguably have a vested interest in the performance of rituals as per the Aagamas applicable to the temples in question. However, this court is not sure whether they can have the locus or locum in disputes of the kind.

(b) There is yet another aspect to the so called dispute in question. The respondent-Commissioner in W.P.No.18035/2011 which is already mentioned above, had filed the Statement of Objections wherein it was specifically stated at para 9 as under:

'The contention of the petitioner that the dispute of succession to hereditary trusteeship is ot maintainable before the authorities and the same has to be agitated before the civil court etc., as the petitioner is not a member of Kodetthurugutthu family, he has no locus-standi to file objection for the succession by the members of Kodetthurugutthe family. Hence, the 1st respondent has rightly passed order for succession of the 2nd respondent as hereditary trustee of the temple as the petitioner does not belong to Kodetthurugutthu family.'

The above stand of the Commissioner come to the aid of petitioner herein in the light of the observations of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 3.5.2016 supra, whereby the said Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the said contention.

(c) There is force in the contention of learned Sr. Advocate appearing for t