Issuance of notice u/s 80 CPC is a must.

Bellie, J.

1. The controversy in these two Letters Patent Appeals is as to the requirement of issue of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The two appeals arise out of one suit. To state a few facts of the case, according to the plaintiff -His Holiness Srivan Satagopa Sri Vedantha De-sika Yathindra Mahadesigan, 44th Jeer of Sri Abhobila Math - Hereditary Trustee of Vedantha Desikar Sannadhi within the precincts of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, there is a shrine for Sri Vedantha Desikar inside the temple. It was an established usage to bring the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar along with other Achariafs and Alwars to the Sanctum Sanctorum of Lord Rahganatha in the temple on the days of Yugathi, Deepavali and Kanu, etc. with Vadakalai Paraphernalia, Patram, Vazhithirunamam, etc. Unfortunately disputes arose between Thenkalai and Vadakalai vaishnavites and in this regard there were criminal proceedings also and the Thenkalais obstructed taking the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar to the said Sanctum Sanctorum of Sri Ranganathaswami. The Plaintiff made an application to trustees of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam to take the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar on the said dates, i.e., Yugathi, Deepavali and Kanu days as per the usage and to that the trustees said that if the idol were to be taken to the Sanctum Sanctorum it should bear only Thenkalai mark on its forehead and not Vadakalai mark. The plaintiff filed an application in this regard before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, but he accepted the case of the trustees that the idol should bear Thenkalai mark. An appeal by the plaintiff to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, failed and therefore the present suit under Section 70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act.

2. The suit having been filed against, among other defendants, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam, an objection was raised that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The trial Court held that the first defendant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Department, and the second defendant Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, are public Officers, and therefore notice under Section 80, C.P.C. to them is necessary and such notice having not been sent the suit is not maintainable. On these findings, without deciding the other issues in the suit, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court. Venugopal, J. in A.S. No. 942 of 1978 found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63 of the Act and the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 are quasi-judicial orders and to pass these orders the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner have exercised quasi judicial powers and therefore they cannot be termed as Public Officers purporting to act in their official capacity within the meaning of Section 80, C.P.C. and hence when a statutory suit is filed under Section 70 of the Act no notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is necessary. On these findings the learned Judge held that the suit is maintainable and he allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial Court for trial on other issues on merits and disposal of the suit afresh.

5. As against this judgment the Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam (second defendant) has filed L.P.A. N6.8 of 1985 and the trustees of Sri Ranganathaswamy temple (defendants 8 to 10, 12 to 15, 17, 22, 24 and 25) have filed L.P.A. Not 18 of 1985. It is contended on behalf of the appellants in both the L.P. As that the finding of the learned Judge holding that notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is riot necessary is erroneous and therefore the remittal order has to be set aside. It must be specially noted here that the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and