A quasi-judicial authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 63 of the HR & CE Act must decide disputes on merits; dismissing an application for lack of documents without calling for them from relevant authorities constitutes a failure to properly adjudicate the matter.

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to allow the petitioners to perform poojas framed scheme order in O.A.No.144/1968, dated 22.01.2024 also the 3rd respondent pass order in Na.Ka.No.356/2018/Aa2 on 15.08.2018 and to take necessary action as against respondent 5 to 8 based on the representation of the petitioners dated 03.11.2025

ORDER

The prayer of the petitioner is for a Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to perform pooja, as per the Scheme framed in Order in O.A.No.144 of 1968, dated 22.01.2024 and the order passed on 15.08.2018 and based on the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2025.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perusing the writ petition and the material records of the case, it can be seen that the petitioner claims right to perform pooja, being a representative of the third clan, as per the scheme framed in respect of the temple. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a W.P.No.15472 of 2025 for the very same relief and this Court passed the following order and paragraph No.4 of the said order is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“4.In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

(i)The petitioners can also make a fresh application under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 regarding any customary rights if any claimed by them, along with a copy of this order and enclosing the earlier representation, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order.

(ii)As and when the said application is received, it shall be dealt with in accordance with law by issuing notice to the petitioners and final orders shall be passed within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of filing of the application. No costs.”

Thereafter the petitioner had approached the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 (e) with the above prayer. The Joint Commissioner, after an enquiry and consideration of the case of the parties, passed a detailed order, however, holding that the relevant documents in order to enable him to resolve the dispute is not placed on record, however, once again directed the authorities to follow the customary practice as well as the scheme framed in respect of the said temple and on that ground, dismissed the application of the petitioner.

The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

,e;J rka kw;Wk ; mwf;fl;lisfs ; rl;lk ; 22/1959

“

gphpt[ 63(e) fPH;fz;lthW bjhptpf;fpwJ/

(Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner)

to decide certain disputes and matters:-

Whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter.

kDjhuh;fs; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; chpa Mtz';fs; VJk ; jhf;fy ; bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ ,k;kD bjhlh;ghf rl;l tpjpfSf;Fl;gl;L gHf;f tHf;fj;jpd;go bray;gl 1 kw;Wk ; 2k; vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ vdnt kDjhuhpd; kD js;Sgo bra;ag;gLfpwJ/

”

Under these circumstances, the petitioner has made further representation and come up with the present writ petition.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, when the Joint Commissioner even while dismissing the application of the petitioner has directed the authorities to act as per law, it is again the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for performing pooja as per the law including customary practice as well as the scheme framed. The learned counsel would also rely upon the earlier order passed in the year 2018 in this regard.

It can be seen that when the Joint Commissioner was called upon to decide as to the right of the petitioner, it is not decided on merits. The Joint Commissioner could have very wel