JUDGMENT :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to Record/Appoint the petitioner herein as Hereditary Trustee as a successor in line as per Section 54(1) of HR&CE Act in a time bound manner.

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to Record/Appoint the petitioner herein as Hereditary Trustee as a successor in line as per Section 54(1) of HR&CE Act in a time bound manner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, a temple called Arulmighu Mariamman Temple is located at Lakkampatti village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District, where the petitioner's father one T.P. Ramasamy claimed to had been the hereditary trustee and in this regard the petitioner claims that his father T.P. Ramasamy filed a Civil suit in O.S. No. 405 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, where he obtained a declaratory decree that, he was the hereditary trustee of the said temple.

3. Pursuant to the same, according to the petitioner, the petitioner's father T.P. Ramasamy had been recognized and continued as a hereditary trustee for the said temple till his life time and he expired on 18.08.2000.

4. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the petitioner, his brother and his mother are the legal heirs of the said T.P. Ramasamy and out of the three, the mother and the other brother have already given no objection for the petitioner to inherit the hereditary-ship to have the hereditary trusteeship of the temple concerned under the provisions of the HR&CE Act and accordingly the petitioner would be entitled to claim the hereditary trusteeship of the temple concerned within the meaning of Section 54(1) of the HR&CE Act (In short ‘the Act’). Therefore, in this regard the petitioner had given a representation to the respondent on 18.08.2021 and the said representation, since have been not considered and decided by the respondent, i.e. the Joint Commissioner HR&CE, Erode, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

5. Heard Ms. V.S. Usharani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who after having reiterated the aforesaid facts, would seek the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondent to decide the application/representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2021 in accordance with law, especially under the provisions of the HR&CE Act within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

6. Heard Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, who however would submit that, first of all, insofar as the Civil Court decree referred to by the petitioner is concerned, where the HR&CE Department is not a party and therefore the said decree would not bind the HR&CE Department. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that, though it was claimed by the petitioner that his father T.P. Ramasamy was functioning as a hereditary trustee, unless and until that recognition had been given to the said T.P. Ramasamy to function as a hereditary trustee, that claim cannot be automatically made by a legal heir of the said T.P. Ramasamy including the petitioner.

7. In this context, it is the further contention of the learned Government Advocate that, if at all any claim is made to hold the post of hereditary trustee, that has to be gone into and decided on merits by the Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE, concerned and that is one of the functions of the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 of the Act, especially under Clause (b) of Section 63. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader would contend that, first of all the claim made by the petitioner that, the petitioner's father was considered to be a hereditary trustee and accordingly he acted as such till his lifetime, itself has to be decided under Section 63(b) of the Act and then only the claim of the petitioner to consider him and declare him