The court upheld the recognized rights of a religious community to perform rituals in a temple and deemed the ongoing civil proceedings as sufficient to adjudicate any disputes regarding those rights, thus setting aside the impugned order.

ORDER :

C.SARAVANAN, J.

The Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the 3^rd Respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner in his proceedings in O.A.No.35 of 2021.

2. By the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 in O.A.No.35 of 2021, the3^rd Respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner has set aside Order dated 12.11.2012 bearing Pro.RC.No. 12001/2007 of the 4^th Respondent/ Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple Tiruchendur, Tuticoirn District. The operative portion of the Impugned Order reads as under:

3. The Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 in O.A.No.35 of 2021 of the 3^rd Respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner is pursuant to an earlier Order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the 2^nd Respondent/Commissioner of HR&CE Department in R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2.

4. By the aforesaid Order dated 08.01.2019, the 2^nd Respondent/Commissioner of HR&CE Department had directed as follows:-

“To decide the above issues inter alia, a full fledged enquiry ought to be conducted by examining witnesses, marking relevant documents by following procedures laid down under CPC. This forum, while exercising revisional jurisdiction is not in a position to conduct a full fledged enquiry as per CPC. Hence it is considered appropriate to direct the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli to conduct Sue-motu enquiry under Section 63(c) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli is directed to initiate Suo-motu enquiry under Section 63(e) of the Act by issuing notice to all the parties concerned including the petitioner herein. The Joint Commissioner should conduct enquiry as contemplated under the holding of Inquiring Rules framed under Section 116(2) of the HR&CE Act and pass orders within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order The Revision petition is hereby disposed of with the above directions.”

5. R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2 was filed under Section 69 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 by one S.Ayyappan, the Petitioner therein, against an Order dated 06.03.2017 of the 3^rd Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the HR&CE Department, Tirunelveli in A.P.No.3 of 2015 filed under Section 55(4) of the HR & CE Act, 1959.

6. The said S.Ayyappan, had earlier filed A.P.No.3 of 2015 before the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Tirunelveli, questioning the decision of the 4^th Respondent, Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the 5^th Respondent Temple, whereby the recommendation of the then Fit Person, namely Kottai Manikandan dated 16.07.2012 was accepted by the 4^th Respondent on the same day whereby the members of the Petitioner Sabha were allowed to carry on the duty of Thirumeni Kaval inside the premises of the 5^th Respondent Temple as was done in the past.

7. The case of the Petitioner Sabha before this Court is that the Petitioner Sabha has already filed O.S.No.151 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Tiruchendur (formerly O.S.No.23 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi.) for a declaration that the members of the Petitioner Sabha numbering about 2000 persons, namely Thriswathanthirargal or Sthalathars were a denominational community of the 5^th Respondent Temple and are therefore entitled to officiate certain rituals within the premises of the 5^th Respondent Temple, namely Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.

8. The rights in respect of which the Petitioner Sabha claims are in respect of the following called as Thirumeni Kavalpani:

9. The case of the Petitioner Sabha is that there are religious texts viz