The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether a temple is covered under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act or considered a private temple, which influences the applicability of the Act and the appointment of temple officials.

1. The Writ Petition is directed against the order of the 4th respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as fit person and Executive Officer of Sri Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Netaji Street, Madurai.

2. The Writ Petition is filed on the premise that it is not covered under the provisions of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.P.Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent that the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, namely, the 2nd respondent by exercising his suo motu powers under section 63(a) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act in the order dated 12.7.2010 has concluded that the said Temple is not a private temple and it is a religious Institution covered under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. When the authority contemplated under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act has declared the temple as a Temple covered under the Act and not a private temple, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, it is only for the petitioners to work out their remedy against the said order by the competent authority under Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act.

3. In such circumstances and taking note of the subsequent event, wherein the authority has now passed an order declaring that the temple is not a private one, the Writ Petition challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent as a fit person becomes infructuous and it cannot be allowed to continue. In such view of the matter, giving liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy against the order of the Joint Commissioner as stated above dated 12.7.2010, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order of the Joint Commissioner dated 12.7.2010 has not been served to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department would submit that the Department would serve a copy of the above said order to the petitioner. It is made clear that on such service of copy of the order, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. However, on receipt of such copy, if the petitioners prefer an appeal as per the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the appellate authority, taking into the above facts and circumstances of the case, shall take note of the date of service of the copy of the order to the petitioner for the purpose of limitation.