The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order Suo Motu Original Application No.01/2022 dated 09.12.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent herein, and quash the said impugned order.)

1.The writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order passed by the 1st respondent in Suo Motu Original Application No.1 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022.

2. The petitioner is an Archakar of Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, Kanchipuram. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Temple is following Pancharathra Agamam. Under Pancharathra Agamam, there are some Samhithas like Jayagya Samhihai/Padma Samhithai. In order to perform pooja as an Archaka in the said Temple proper training under the above said Samhithas is absolutely necessary. After training in the said Samhithas before performing poojas as Archaka, the person concerned must get Dheeksha (Initiation) from the elder Archaka, who has been performing Pooja as Archaka in the said temple. The persons, who got trained in particular Samhithas under Pancharathra Agamam and got initiated by an Archaka in particular temple cannot perform Pooja in another Temple where different Samhitha is followed. It is also stated that in Sri Ranganathaswami Temple at Srirangam, Paarameshwara Samhithai under Pancharathra Agamam is being followed and therefore, persons trained and initiated under Paarameshwara Samhithai cannot perform pooja in Sri Devarajaswamy Temple, Kancheepuram.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent herein got trained under Paarameshwara Samhithai and got initiation to perform as Archaka at Sri Ranganathaswami Temple, Srirangam. When 4th respondent is performing pooja as Chief Archaka of said temple, the 3rd respondent herein by order dated 04.12.2017 passed an order as if, the 4th respondent has got Archakaship at Sri Devarajaswamy Temple. It was specific case of the petitioner that 4th respondent was never appointed as Archaka of said Temple and he never performed duty as Archaka in Sri Devarajaswamy Temple. The 2nd respondent herein initiated suo motu proceedings in Suo Motu Revision No.4 of 2018/D2, dated 21.06.2018 to examine the legality of the order passed by 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.17507 of 2018, challenging the initiation of suo motu revision by the 2nd respondent. The said writ petition was allowed by quashing the suo motu revision and aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein filed an appeal in W.A.(MD).No.316 of 2020. Ultimately, the said writ appeal was allowed directing the 2nd respondent to proceed with suo motu revision and pass orders.

4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.A.(MD).No.316 of 2020, the suo motu revision was proceeded with by the 2nd respondent and an order came to be passed on 30.11.2021 by setting aside the original order passed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent. In his order, the 2nd respondent directed initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 63(e) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''HR and CE Act'' for brevity) to decide the following seven issues:-

“(i) Whether the said Srinivasa Raghavan was an Archakar of Arulmighu Devaraja Swamy Temple, Kancheepuram?

(ii) Whether he is entitled to perform archaka service as per the established custom and usage of the temple and Section 55 (2) of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959.

(iii) The right of the Archaka has developed from whom and how? From the person who held it originally devolves from father to his son hereditarily (or) by customary practice and usage.

(iv) Whether, the archakamurai can be performed through substitute?

(v) Whether, Thiru. Srinivasa Raghavan is entitled to perform archaka service in the said temple by custome and what the established usage of