ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/2022/A3, dated 20.01.2021, whereby, informing and authorising the Bank Manager that Ayyanar Poojari would be authorised to operate Bank Account No. 157601000011311 in the name of the temple. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier operating the bank account from the year 2019. By e.f.vz;.2371/2019/M2> dated 24.07.2019, the petitioner was authorised to operate the bank account. Suddenly, without any reasons the second respondent, removed the petitioner from the authorised person to operate the bank account and one Ayyanar had been nominated. Further, he submitted that when enquired the Bank Manager, a letter was shown by the third respondent, wherein, allegations have been made against the petitioner. The petitioner was neither informed of any such allegation nor called for any explanation. In such circumstances, the second respondent on the own coming to the conclusion with one sided materials are not proper. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is a poojari who conduct pooja for non-listed temple. It is a temple without income. The temple survives on the Oru Kaalai Pooja Scheme. As per the scheme, monthly maintenance money is remitted from the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Department to the Bank accounts of the respective needy temple and for the pooja and other expenses, poojaris are authorised. In this case, the petitioner was authorised in the year 2019. Apart from the petitioner, there are other poojaris, who perform poojai in turns. There was some allegation against the petitioner for not properly conducting pooja and not giving share to other poojaris. On ascertaining the same, thereafter, for better administration, the accounts authorisation given to the petitioner was cancelled and authorisation in the name of one Ayyanar poojari to operate the accounts given. This will not affect any of the petitioner's rights. He further submitted that enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner.

4. Considering the submission of materials that the petitioner was poojari of non-listed temple availing Oru Kaalai Pooja Scheme, for which, earlier the petitioner was authorized to operate the bank account and now, Ayyanar Poojari and other poojaris have been authorised by change of authorisation, it cannot be stated to be arbitrary violating any of the rights of the petitioner. It is for administrative convenience such instructions by the authorities.

5. The only grievance seems to be that the petitioner has sent a representation on 26.03.2022 to the respondents 1 and 2, but no action taken. In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, if needed, give him a personal opportunity of hearing and dispose of the same within intimation to the petitioner.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.06.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No sn To

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sn

06.06.2022