Continuity of worship must be preserved during administrative inquiries, and appointments should be respected unless compelling irregularities are proven.

ORDER :

(N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.7.2024 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to take over the Seethammal Morai till the revision application is disposed of by the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The fourth respondent was never an Archakar in the third respondent temple. However, for the first time, the third respondent, by order dated 04.12.2017, recognized the fourth respondent as the Archakar of the third respondent temple and permitted him to perform the Seethammal Morai. Pursuant to that, the first respondent initiated Suo Motu Revision No.4/2018 D2 by invoking Section 21 of the TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT (HR & CE), 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) against the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Vellore and respondents 3 to 5 to examine the legality and propriety of the said order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the third respondent and a notice dated 18.6.2018 came to be issued.

(ii) This was put to challenge by the fourth respondent by filing W.P.(MD) No.17507 of 2018 before the Madurai Bench of this Court and the suo motu proceedings initiated by the first respondent was quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26.4.2019. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.4.2019, the third respondent filed W.A.(MD)No.316 of 2020 and it was allowed by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.6.2021 and a direction was issued to the first respondent to proceed with the suo motu proceedings.

(iii) Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 30.11.2021, the first respondent set aside the said order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the third respondent and directed the second respondent to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 63(e) of the Act. The second respondent took up the revision and passed an order on 09.12.2022 directing the third respondent to prepare a code book for the third respondent temple. However, the second respondent also allowed the fourth respondent to continue as an Archakar till the third respondent prepares the code book.

(iv) As against the same, the fifth respondent filed W.P.No.1088 of 2023 before this Court and it was dismissed by order dated 12.7.2023, however, granting liberty to the fifth respondent to file a statutory appeal before the first respondent. Pursuant to that, an appeal was filed by the fifth respondent before the first respondent in A.P.No.25/23/D2, in which, the first respondent passed an order dated 17.4.2024 disposing of the appeal and setting aside the said order passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2022, which allowed the fourth respondent to perform pooja in the third respondent temple. While setting aside the said order of the second respondent dated 09.12.2022, the first respondent remitted the matter back to the second respondent to conduct a de novo inquiry and to decide on the various issues, which arose in the earlier order of the first respondent in Suo Motu Revision No.4/18 D2 after affording an opportunity to all concerned.

(v) It is alleged that the third respondent temple, despite receipt of the order passed by the first respondent, allowed the fourth respondent as a proxy to perform pooja. Various representations were also sent in