The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to perform pooja in a temple falls within the jurisdiction of Section 63(e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and cannot be adjudicated by the civil court.

V. PARTHIBAN, J.

1. The case of the petitioner is that he is an archagar attached to the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai. In the said temple, the archagars were engaged to do poojas and other allied works in the sanctum sanctorum who hail from three different family ancestors (i) those who are exclusively engaged for performing pooja; (ii) those who are engaged in "Murai work" and (3) those who do pooja and murai. The petitioner claims to belong to the first category and therefore was engaged to do pooja in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the third respondent who was from the second category was engaged only as murai ie., cleaning of the sanctum sanctorum and maintenance of the lights etc. He was never involved in performing pooja at the temple at all.

2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had been engaged to do murai work from 1968 and he has been carrying the duties as such and while so, he approached the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the temple on 21.06.2010 vide his representation stating that his ancestors had enjoyed the right to do pooja and therefore, he should also be assigned pooja work. The said representation has been resisted by the petitioner and few archagars. However, the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer ultimately without considering the objections of the petitioner and Others in proper prospective, passed an order on 15.02.2013 holding that the third respondent has 1/16th right in the pooja rights and further held that he was entitled to do pooja on 7th and 22nd day of every month as per tamil calendar.

3. The above order passed by the Executive Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, by way of revision in R.P.No.19 of 2013. The Commissioner, by order dated 06.08.2013 dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Executive Officer. According to the petitioner, several grounds were raised in the revision petition including the issue of jurisdiction by the Executive Officer for passing such order in favour of the third respondent. In fact it was contended before the Commissioner that the Executive Officer has only limited powers in relation to the administration of the properties and day to day affairs of the temple and cannot appoint the third respondent to do pooja, which is completely outside the purview of the power enjoyed by the Executive Officer.

4. In any case, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.22632 of 2013 before this Court, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, dated 06.08.2013. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 07.10.2014, on the basis of the submission made by the Counsel. The learned Judge has disposed of the writ petition as under in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the order which are reproduced as herein:

"8. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would take recourse to Section 63(e) of the Act. There cannot be any objection to the said course of action. The proceedings impugned in this writ petition, may not directly satisfy the requirements of Section 63(e) of the Act. Under Section 63(e) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner is obliged to hold a full-fledged enquiry, in respect of certain disputes and matters listed out in clauses (a) to (g). It is like a judicial enquiry and hence there cannot be any impediment for the petitioner to invoke Section 63(e) of the Act.

9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to move an application under Section 63(e) of the Act. It is open to the parties to raise the question of locus standi of the petitioner also before the Joint Commissioner, if and when the petitioner moves an application under Section 63(e) of the Act. Independent of the orders passed, the Joint Commissioner can go into the question of the locus standi of the petitioner. No costs. Th