Temple held as a public temple.

Writ Appeal No.575 of 1990 has been filed against the Order of the learned single Judge dated 8. 1989 made in W.P.No. 10441 of 1989, where under the learned single Judge has chosen to dismiss in limine, the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent-Government in G.O.Rt. No.381, dated 15. 1989 rejecting the revision filed by the appellant on 27. 1985 challenging the order of the second respondent herein in Pro.R.Dis. No.45486/84 (L-), dated 110. 1984 appointing an Executive Officer to Sri Kanniamman temple, Manapakkam Village, Chengalpattu District.

2. The temple in question was originally said to be founded by one Venkatachala Naicker, the greatgrandfather of the appellant and from the year 1967 onwards the appellant claims to have come under the management as hereditary trustee on the death of his father Pravalavarrta Naicker on 26. 1962. Though the appellant has claimed that he is a hereditary trustee and the temple is his private temple, no such declaration under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “1959 Act”) has been obtained by him. On the other hand, the appellant claims that his father filed an application under Sec.84 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act II of 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "Act II of 1927) in O.A. No.98 of 1939 and the then Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board was said to have held that the temple in question is an "excepted" temple. It is on that basis, the appellant claims throughout before the authorities below and before this Court that the respondents have no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the temple in question. The learned single Judge repelled the claim of the appellant on the ground that under Sec.45 of the 1959 Act, the Commissioner is empowered to appoint Executive Officer for any religious institution and even if a declaration has been obtained under Act II of 1927, that the temple is an "excepted" temple, that will not give any basis to project a claim that the temple is a private temple, unless the appellant moves the authorities under Sec.63 of the 1959 Act to obtain a declaration to that effect. The learned single Judge was also of the view that if the temple has been declared to be an "excepted" temple under the provisions of Act II of 1927, it only meant and had the consequence that the trusteeship was hereditary and nothing more. It is seen from the order of the Government dated 15. 1989. Which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned single Judge in the writ petition, that in view of the fact that there were serious irregularities in the administration of the affairs of the temple, of which some were also virtually accepted by the appellant himself in the enquiry conducted on 2. 1984, the action of the second respondent-Commissioner in appointing the Executive Officer is in the best interests of the administration of the affairs of the temple under Sec.45(1) of the 1959 Act and is in accordance with law and no interference of the Government was called for in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the order of the Commissioner.

3.. The above writ appeal was admitted on 28. 1990 and the appellant did not appear to have taken effective steps to have the service on the respondents of the proceedings effectively completed. The matter was also listed before court on 12. 1991 and when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and consequently, their Lordships of the Division Bench, the then Acting Chief Justice (Natnar Sundaram, J.) and Somasundaram, J. ordered dismissal of the writ appeal for not taking steps to serve the respondents on 12. 1991. Thereupon, the appellant has filed C.M.P. No. 13672 of 1993 to condone the delay of 568 days in filing the application for setting aside the order of dismissal o