Judgment — T. Raja, J.

Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 02.02.2009 made in writ petition No. 18248 of 2006. The other two appeals in Writ Appeals Nos. 182 and 183 of 2009 are filed against the orders of the learned single Judge impleading respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition by order dated 02.02.2009 made in M.P No. 2 of 2006 and M.P No. 1 of 2008 in writ petition No. 18248 of 2006.

2. ‘Iswara’ as Lord Siva is generally worshipped in a particular form known as ‘Linga’. The Word ‘Linga’ in Sanskrit means a symbol. If all forms in the creation were put together that would form an indefinable form which is symbolised by ‘Linga’.

3. The vedas reduce all forms to five constituent elements called the “pancha mahabutas”, viz., five great elements, they are “Akasa-Space; Vayu-Air; Agni-Fire; Apah-Water and prithivi-Earth”. There are five temples in India where Lord Siva is invoked in each of the five elements. At Chidambaram temple, Lord Siva is worshipped as the element of space. At Kalahasdi temple, in Andhra Pradesh, sivalingam as well as a lamp with a constant flame implying the presence of air is worshipped as element of air. At Tiruvannamalai Arunachaleeswara temple, Lord Siva is worshipped as Agni, fire. At Jambukeswara temple located at Tiruvannaikaval, at Tiruchirappalli, Lord Siva is worshipped as the element of water. At Kancheepuram, sivalingam is made of earth and is worshipped as the element of earth.

4. The Chidambaram Temple contains an altar which has no idol. In fact, no Lingam exists but a Curtain is hung before a wall, when people go to worship, the curtain is withdrawn to see the ‘Lingam’. But the ardent devotee will feel the divinely wonder that Lord Siva is formless i.e, space which is known as “Akasa Lingam”. Offerings are made before the curtain. This form of worshipping space is called the “Chidambara rahasyam”, i.e, the secret of Chidambaram. The Chidambaram Temple is also famous for its deity, Lord Nataraja, the “dancing Siva”. This temple was built with Granites in an area of about 40 acres. It has massive high walls with four towers (Rajagopurams) in all four directions. There is a pond called “Sivaganga Theertham” having measured about 175 × 100 feet. There are 108 Bharathanatya models (dance postures) from Natya Sasthra fixed in the Rajagopurams.

5. Of the five temples of Siva, when all four ancient sacred Siva Temples are under proper care and efficient administration of the Board, the Podhu Dikshidars at Chidambaram Sabhanayagar Temple alone are fighting with no end against the Board since 1885, and thereby reducing the great ancient Sri Sabhanayagar temple financially crunched and the temple's unique & architectural structures left unattended due to this endless court proceedings.

6. As early as in 1885, a suit was filed by the Dikshidars of Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘temple’ for short) raising a question as to whether the temple at Chidambaram is a public institution or private temple. The first native Judge of British India Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muthuswani Ayer sitting with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shephard, in the judgment dated 17.03.1890 in A.S No. 108 and 159 of 1888 declared the temple as a place of public worship from time immemorial in the presidency and accordingly held that the Board has got jurisdiction to frame scheme under section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act of 1923, (Act I of 1925). This is seen in an old judgment reported in 1939 (2) MLJ 11=(1939) 50 L.W 126 (Ponnuman Dikshitar v. The Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras).

7. The second controversial question which arose for consideration by the Division Bench of this court under section 62 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act (11 of 1927), was also answered therein by precisely holding even in the year 1939, more than 160 years back, that once the Board takes action suo moto under section 62, even though, it may ultimately find that there was no mismanagement, nevertheless, it can frame a scheme, if it is necessary for the proper administration of the temple.

8. In the year 1927, when the Hindu Religious Endowment Act of 1923 (Act I of 1925) came into force, on behalf of the Dikshidars of the temple, a memorial was submitted to His Excellency the Governor in Council, Fort St. George, in which they referred to the history of the temple, its endowments and the usages obtaining therein. On that basis, the Podhu Dikshidars requested the Government to grant exemption to the temple from the operation of the Act by virtue of the power under section 2 of the said Act. This request of the appellant was granted by the Government in G.O No. 3750 (L. and M.) dated 28th August 1926, exempting the temple, from the operation of provision of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act I of 1925) except sections 38, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 69 and 70. Section 38 deals with hereditary trustees; section 57 deals with submission of budgets and annual accounts; sections 58 and 59 related to schemes; sections 64, 65 and 66 to finance and contribution and sections 69 and 70 to the removal of a trustee and costs.

9. In the year 1931 some of the worshippers of the temple moved the Board to frame a scheme and the Board started a proceedings to frame a scheme in O.A No. 644 of 1931, but owing to some technical defects, the proceedings were dropped. However, in view of frequent complaints, the Board took up the matter suo motu in O.A No. 73/1932 and settled a scheme on 08.05.1933

10. The scheme directed the establishment of Hundials for collections of offerings and the introduction of the chit system for Archana. The Podhu Dikshidars immediately instituted a suit in OS. No. 16 of 1933 in the District Court, South Arcot, questioning the scheme.

11. The learned District Judge in the year 1936 itself confirmed the correctness of the scheme with a slight modification by a decree dated 09.09.1936 In the said scheme, the trusteeship was vested in the Podhu Dikshidars. The managing committee was enjoined to appoint a manager subject to the approval of the Board on salary basis, and to establish hundials for the deposit of voluntary and compulsory offerings and also to fix the rates for the performance of archana and special worship. Their duties were defined under the scheme. They were required to lease out temple properties invariably by public auction. They are bound to maintain accounts and the Board was authorised to appoint one or more of the worshippers as Honarary Trustees who shall attend to the inspection of the accounts, ascertain whether the Kattalais are being performed regularly and bring to the notice of the managing committee, any irregularities in such matters. The committee was required to prepare a list of jewels and submit a copy of the same to the Board.

12. During the pendency of the suit and before the judgment was pronounced by the District Court, the exemption granted in 1926 was annulled and the Board attempted to notify the temple by proceedings dated 01.05.1936, under the Act. A Division Bench of this Court, having seen that a scheme was framed in 1933 and proceedings relating to this notification were pending in District Court, directed the Board to drop the proceedings to notify the temple and accordingly, the said proceedings were dropped.

13. In the year 1951, since mounting pressures came from various worshippers and public to notify this temple, the Board once again, after hearing objections from the Podhu Dikshidars by order dated 21.03.1951, decided to notify the temple as they were satisfied that a case for such a step was made out. Again, an appeal was preferred before the Full Board and it was disposed of by an order of the Full Board dated 11.7.1951

14. This was immediately followed by notification dated 31.08.1951 and the Government also approved the proposed action of the Board for appointment of Executive Officer and issued a notification dated 28.08.1951 Under the new Act, the Government published the notification declaring the institution to be subject to the provision of Chapter VI of the Act.

15. The order of the Board in the first instance deciding to notify the temple proceeded on the following grounds:

(i) that though there was a scheme already framed by the Board and finalised by the Court in 1933, it came into force on 1st June 1939, the register of the jewels was not maintained and was not made available for the inspection of the officers of the Board;

(ii) that the temple was in a bad state of repair;

(iii) that the Dikshitars did not take steps to enforce the Podhu Kattalais;

(iv) that no steps were taken to recover the possession of the Tiruvilakku manyam lands;

(v) that chit system for archanas was not introduced;

(vi) that the vacant sites of the temple were not leased out properly;

(vii) that the electrical lighting arrangements in the temple were insufficient;

(viii) that the drains around the temple and inside the shrines were not kept in a sanitary condition;

(ix) that the D.C.B was not maintained and so on which are enumerated seriatum in the annexure to the Board's Order dated 21.3.1951

16. These objections were not at all answered by the Dikshidars in their reply. Therefore, the Full Board and the Board which considered the matter in the first instance, agreed in concluding that there were acts of mis-management established which necessitated notification of the temple.

17. In the second round of litigation, in view of mal-administration and mis-management of the funds, and also the movable and immovable properties of about several hundred acres of land, of course, on the complaints made by some of the Podhu Dikshidars, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O Ms. No. 894, Rural Welfare Department, dated 28.08.1951 declaring the temple as Public Temple. In order to enforce the provisions of the Act, the temple was notified under Chapter VI(A) under section 65 of the Act. Once again, the said G.O was challenged in Writ Petitions Nos. 379 and 380 of 1951 by some of the Dikshidars and the notification was quashed by the judgment dated 13.12.1951

18. After three decades, once again the problem of mis-management was brought to the notice of the Government by several worshippers. The mismanagement pointed out were non-accounting of gold articles received as ‘kaanikkai’ to the temple; that non-accounting of gold ingots coins worth Rs. 2.2 lakhs kept in the Karuvoolam (Treasury) and detected by the Assistant Commissioner in the presence of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and Deputy Superintendent; that there was also loss of 860 grams of Gold in melting the gold jewels; that the donations and contributions given in the name of temple were not properly utilised for the purpose for which it was donated; and that there were misappropriation of huge Hundial moneys donated by lakhs of worshippers visiting the temple everyday.

19. In view of several complaints touching upon the mis-management and mis-handling of temple properties-both movable and immovable, the Government issued notice in R.C No. 52754/1982.B6 dated 20.07.1982 to the secretary of the Podhu Dikshidars pointing out the above irregularities in the administration of the temple and its properties and the proposal to appoint Executive Officer. As usual, the Podhu Dikshidars again challenged the said notice by way of filing W.P No. 5638 of 1982 before the High Court, Madras. The learned single Judge of this Court having seen that no show cause notice was given, directed the parties concerned to treat the notice dated 20.07.1982 as show cause notice and not as a decision and accordingly ordered the Writ Petition directing the Podhu Dikshidars to give proper explanations to the said show cause notice.

20. Pursuant to the said direction, the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars have filed their bald reply on 09.01.1984, without answering any of the specific allegations made therein. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner. One of the contentions raised by the Podhu Dikshidars was that the appointment of Executive Officer would be interfering with their Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. However, the Commissioner after affording full opportunity to both parties and after taking note of the serious lapses on the part of the Podhu Dikshidars in not properly accounting of the revenue of the temple, movable and immovable properties, has passed the order dated 31.07.1987 appointing Executive Officer. It is pointed out that the appointment of Executive Officer is only to look after the administration of the temple and the management of the properties alone and that will not mean interference with the rights of Dikshidars relating to religious practices in the temple. The Executive Officer assumed the charge of the temple on 10.08.1987 Aggrieved by that order dated 31.07.1987, W.P No. 7843 of 1987 was filed before this Court. When the matter came up for consideration, though this Court declined to grant stay of the appointment of Executive Officer, but granted stay of Rule 3 which gives powers and duties of the Executive Officer.

21. The Writ Petition filed in the year 1987 challenging the appointment of Executive Officer was taken up in 1997, after 10 years, and during this interregnum period, in view of the stay granted, the Podhu Dikshidars were in full enjoyment of the temple management and administration. When the learned Single Judge indicated to the Writ Petitioner/appellant to challenge the correctness of the order appointing the Executive Officer by way of Revision under Section 114 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the same was opposed by the petitioner/appellant herein by objecting that more than 10 years had been lapsed, and therefore, going back before the Revisional Authority would not serve their purpose. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after considering the matter afresh came to the conclusions that the Writ Petitioner/appellant herein are in possession of several hundred acres of land belonging to the temple, collected rents from the tenants, but they have not accounted all the lease amounts either to the Executive Officer or to the Court, as directed, which means that the offerings made by devotees were swallowed by them and the gold articles and jewels belonging to the deity were not properly accounted; that the donations received from the worshippers have not been properly accounted, that the direction of the Court that every three months end or quarterly end, they have to account for the money, offerings and gold jewellery of the temple, submit a regular account to the Executive Officer, has not been complied with by the appellant and dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge further held that it could be detrimental to the devotees and Public in interfering with the order of appointing the Executive Officer, who was appointed for better management and effective administration of the temple. Aggrieved by that order, the Podhu Dikshidars/appellant herein filed W.A No. 145 of 1997. When the Writ Appeal was finally taken up on 01.11.2004, nearly seven years from the date of disposal of the Writ Petition, smartly a peculiar prayer, diametrically opposed to what was argued before the learned single Judge, was placed before the Division Bench praying that the Writ Petitioner/appellant herein wanted to file a Revision petition before the Government under section 114 of the HR & CE Act. It is to be noted that the Podhu Dikshidars were enjoying the benefit of interim order granted during the pendency of the Writ Petition as well as in the Writ Appeal.

22. The Division Bench had allowed the prayer of Writ Petitioner/appellant herein to go back before the Revisional Authority by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge passed on merits, however the Division Bench directed the Podhu Dikshidars to submit periodical accounts to the Executive Officer.

23. When the Revision Petition was taken up by the Revisional Authority on 09.05.2006 by noting that the Podhu Dikshidars from the date of the appointment of Executive Officer did not care to cooperate with the Executive Officer and further noting that the Podhu Dikshidars miserably failed even to comply with the order of the Division Bench directing them to submit periodical accounts to the Executive Officer, dismissed the Revision Petition on merits. Aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Authority, the Podhu Dikshidars again initiated another round of proceedings by filing Writ Petition No. 18248 of 2006 under Article 226 Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O Ms. No. 168 dated 09.05.2006 During the pendency of the writ petition, respondents 3 and 4 got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. The Writ Court, after hearing the parties and after examination of various allegations of mis-management, dismissed the writ petition by reason of the order impugned in Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009. The order of impleadment of respondents 3 and 4 is challenged in Writ Appeals Nos. 182 and 183 of 2009.

24. The learned single judge after extensively discussing various aspects, allowed the impleading applications filed by respondents 3 and 4 viz., Mr. P. Sathiyavel Murugan and Mr. U. Arumugasamy. Since the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretionary power in allowing the impleading application filed by respondents 3 and 4, this court declines to interfere with the well exercised discretionary power of the Writ Court.

25. Before us, three petitioners have filed four petitions for impleadment. M.P No. 2 of 2009 is filed by Dr. Subramania Swamy and M.P No. 4 of 2009 is filed by V.M.S Chandrapandian for impleading them as party respondents in W.A No. 181 of 2009. M.Ps Nos. 1 in W.A No. 182 of 2009 and M.P No. 2 of 2009 in W.A No. 183 of 2009 are filed for impleading International Sri Vaishnava Dharma Sasrakshna Society, represented by its President Swami Govindaramanuja Dasa, as party respondent in Writ Appeals Nos. 182 and 183 of 2009.

26. The petitioner in M.P No. 2 of 2009 Dr. Subramania Swamy claims that as the respondents 3 and 4 have already been impleaded by the learned single Judge, there would be no impediment for impleading him also as a party, he being a champion of public cause. The petitioner in M.P No. 4 of 2009 V.M.S Chandrapandian is a former Chairman of Chidambaram Municipality and was also a Member of the Temple Trust and well aware of the activities of the appellant. The petitioner in M.P No. 1 in W.A No. 182 of 2009 and M.P No. 2 of 2009 in W.A No. 183 of 2009 International Sri Vaishnava Dharma Sasrakshna Society, represented by its President Swami Govindaramanuja Dasa claims that as Lord Govindaraja Perumal Sannadhi is also in the temple, they are interested in the lis and they want themselves to be impleaded as party respondents.

27. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the impleading parties and the other counsel in respect of impleadment, and having regard to the fact that respondents 3 and 4 have been impleaded in the writ petition itself, and also having regard to the nature of the lis, which is touching upon the religious sentiments of devotees of Lord Nataraja and Lord Govindaraja Perumal, we are of the view that strict or rigid rule of locus standi of the proposed respondents need not be put against them and they may be allowed to put forth their case which would, in a way, throw some light on the controversy. That would further the cause of justice. Hence, the petitioners in all the four petitions can be impleaded as party respondents and the Miscellaneous petitions are ordered accordingly.

28. Dr. Subramania Swamy, in his submission, after stating as to how he is interested in the lis, has averred about the history and administration of the temple and also the earlier judgment of this Court in Shirur Mutt's case. á The averments are materially the replica of the averments and arguments made by the appellant. On that ground he prayed for allowing the appeal.

29. The other impleaded parties, apart from stating about their association with the temple for a long number of years, averred about the mis-management alleged to have been committed by the appellant and prayed for sustaining the order impugned.

30. The learned senior counsel Mr. Rajagopalan appearing for the Writ Petitioner/Appellant herein submitted the following arguments:

a) The Judgment In W.P Nos. 379 and 380 of 1951 dated 13.12.1951 is binding on the State Government and therefore the appointment of Executive Officer for the temple by order dated 31.07.1987 is illegal.

b) The judgment of this court dated 13.12.1951 quashing the proceedings of the Government holding the order appointing Executive Officer is violative of right of Podhu Dikshidars will bind the respondents as Res Judicata. The same is not considered by the learned writ court. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge should be reversed.

c) That the proceedings of the Government appointing the Executive Officer to the temple is against Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, since the appointment of Executive Officer is directly interfering the right of administration of Podhu Dikshidars and the temple, and

d) That the order dated 31.07.1987 appointing Executive Officer and confirmed by the Government by G.O Ms. No. 168, dated 09.05.2006 is without jurisdiction and hence the Writ Appeal should be allowed.

31. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Ramasamy submitted the following points:

The principles of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to this case. He further contended that the question as to whether the Podhu Dikshidars can be termed as ‘denomination’ was not the issue in the earlier case decided by this Court. The appellant herein neither pleaded nor admitted anywhere earlier in the proceedings that the Podhu Dikshidars is religious denomination or the temple is a denominational one. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will not apply in the present writ jurisdiction. He further argued for sustaining the order of the learned single Judge in respect of the other two issues for the reasons stated in the judgment impugned.

32. Heard Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant, Mr. S. Ramasamy, Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 in the appeals, and other counsel, and perused the materials available on record.

33. Now let us proceed to consider the points in issue, as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009. First, let us consider the issues in respect of the appellant's contention that the Judgment in writ petitions Nos. 379 and 380 of 1951 dated 13.12.1951 (Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner of H.R & C.E Board, Madras, 1952 (1) MLJ 557) is binding on the State Government and therefore the appointment of Executive Officer is illegal and the contention that the said judgment of this Court dated 13.12.1951 will bind the respondents as Res Judicata.

34. The principle of res judicata has been incorporated stating that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit between the same party when the former suit has been heard and finally decided by the Court.

35. The primary issue under consideration in the Shirur Mutt's case was as to the validity of the notification in G.O Ms. No. 894, Rural Welfare dated 28.08.1951 notifying the temple under Chapter VI of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. While dealing with the said question, the Division Bench has referred to the history of the temple as well as the appellant as a group of persons, who have been serving in the temple as archakas.

36. The question as to whether the Podhu Dikshidars are denomination or not, had not strictly fallen for consideration of the Court in that case. The judgment discusses the nature and character of the sect of Podhu Dikshidars. Since the character was not directly or substantially in issue in that case, the principle of res judicata would not operate.

37. In the judgment, the Division Bench proceeded to observe as follows:—

“Looking at from the point of view, whether the Podhu Dikshitars are a denomination, and whether their right as a denomination is to any extent infringed within the meaning of Article 26 it seems to us that it is a clear case, in which it can safely be said that the Podhu Dikshitars who are Smartha Brahmins, form and constitute a religious denomination or in any event, a section thereof.”

This observation, by itself, cannot be regarded as a finding recorded on the issue as to whether the temple is a denomination temple. That issue was not directly and substantially in issue in the Shirur Mutt's case. In the same judgment, it was observed that though the position of Dikshidars is analogous to that of Madathipathi, they would not have the same dominion over the income of the properties of the temple which the Madathipathi enjoys in relation to the income from the mutt and its properties.

38. In the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Ponnuman Dikshidar, 1939 II MLJ 11 =(1939) 50 L.W 126, it has been held that the temple was not a private temple, but a public temple. There was a specific finding in that judgment, which read as follows:

“So early as 1885, when the question was raised in a suit by the Dikshidars, Muthuswamy Aiyar and Shephard, JJ, in their judgment dated 17th March, 1890, in A.S No. 108 and 159 of 1888 observed that it was not denied that the institution was being used as a place of public worship from time immemorial and that there was no particle of evidence in support of the assertion that this ancient temple of Sri Nataraja was the private property of the Dikshidars. Even now it is not denied that this temple is held to be very sacred by all the saivites in their presidency and is reported to as a place of public worship.

39. Subsequently, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dargah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali, 1962 1 SCR 383: AIR 1961 SC 1402, held that, “the words “Religious Denominations” must take their colour from the word religion and this is so the expression “Religious Denomination” must also satisfy three conditions:

1. Collection of religious faith system of belief which is conducive to the spiritual well being, i.e, common faith:

2. Common organisation.

3. a designation by a distinctive name.

The Supreme Court has given a “litmus test” consisting of three conditions to be satisfied for calling any sect as a religious denomination, and any temple as a denomination,

40. The issue raised in the present Writ Appeal has been tested by several judgments in various proceedings emanating from 1932 onwards. In the year 1933 a suit was filed in Suit No. 16 of 1933 by some of the Podhu Dikshidars on the file of the District Court South Arcot, Challenging the boards order No. 997, dated 08.05.1933 under Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927 on the ground that the temple is an absolute private property of Podhu Dikshidars and outside the scope of Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1927. The District Judge rejected the claim that the temple being a private temple and passed a scheme and the same was settled in O.A No. 73 of 1932. On appeal filed by the Dikshidars in A.S No. 306 of 1936 this High Court, while confirming the scheme with some modification has affirmed the findings of the fact that the temple is a public temple and the same was reported in 1939 (2) MLJ 11.

41. The learned Single Judge, in the present impugned order, has dealt with the issue by referring various judgments of the Apex Court. One such case is Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Viswanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P, 1997 (4) SCC 606 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court, believers of Shiva form of worship are not a denominational sect or section of Hindu, but they are Hindus as such.

42. It has been further admitted by the Podhu Dikshidars themselves that this temple is meant for both Saivites and the Vaishnavites. In Sri Sabhanayagar Temple two main deities namely Sri Natarajar and Vishnu by name Sri Govindaraja Perumal are installed. Both the temples have separate sanctum sanctorium, separate bali Peedam, separate Gopuram, separate Dwajasthambham (kodi maram). When both the sacred temples are situated within one campus having distinct and separate religious rituals and practice of religious functions and both the places of worship are open to public, the temple is a public temple. An another historical fact to be born in mind is, out of 108 holy places of Vaishnavite namely “Dhivyadesam”, Sri Sabhanayagar temple at Chidambaram where Lord Govindaraja Perumal is installed, is one among the 108 Divyadesam. Historical records also reveal that in praise of Lord Govindaraja Perumal, two great saints namely Kulasekara Azhwar and Thirumangai Azhwar have visited these ancient temple and also sung several religious songs and they are all seen in Nalayira Divyaprabandam.

43. Vaishnavam and Saivam are considered by Hindus as two eyes of Hindu Religion. Therefore, when two temples of two faiths are situated in one single campus and when two religious groups are coming every day to offer prayer to these two deities Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva, it cannot be held that this temple is meant for only one sect of people, and therefore, the arguments of the appellant/Podhu Dikshidars claiming that the temple is a religious denomination belonging to Saivites alone cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if such an argument is accepted, it is like harming one eye while protecting another eye and further such an approach will seriously work against the sentiments of Vaishnavite.

44. The observation of the earlier Division Bench in Shirur Mutt's case, are not in consonance with the three tests enunciated by the Supreme Court in various judgments mentioned above, the learned single judge rightly said that the observation of Division Bench in Shirur Mutt's case may not have any significance to a century old dispute and has rightly held on the basis of the judgment of the apex Court that the observation of Division Bench in Shirur Mutt's case has no relevance to the present legal status of this case. Particularly, the observation of the Division Bench will not hold good in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dargah Committee's case, AIR 1961 SC 1402, Adi Visheshwara of Kasi Vishwanath temple, 1997 (4) SCC 606, and Sri Jaganath Temple Puri Management committee v. Chinthamani Kuntis, 1997 (8) SCC 422

45. Hence, the said judgment in Shirur mutt's case even though between the same parties, being primarily on a different question, would not bar the adjudication of the character of the Podhu Dikshidars as a sect or the nature and the character of the temple and thus the principles of res judicata would clearly not apply to the facts of the present case.

46. Further, the judgment could be binding between the parties so long as there is no change of law effected by Parliament or State Legislature or as long as there is no intervention by a judicial order. The power conferred on various authorities under the H.R & C.E Act, 1959 cannot be a bar by the judgment rendered in the year 1952, where the matter directly and substantially in issue was of a fundamentally different character.

47. The principle of res judicata and its applicability have been considered by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, the conspectus of which could be summarized as follows: The doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure: it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law. Where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata between the same parties: Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee case, ILR 56 Cal 723. It is obvious that the matter in issue in a subsequent proceeding is not the same as in the previous proceeding, because the law interpreted is different. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land. Vide Three Judge Bench's decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613.

48. In view of the above enunciation of law, we are of the considered view that the points as to the binding nature of the Shirur Mutt's case and res judicata put forth by the appellant fail. Thus points 1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.

49. The second question is as to whether the order of appointment of Executive Officer for the administration and for proper maintenance of the properties of the temple would infringe the right of the appellant under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

50. It is necessary to take a glance of Article 26 of the Constitution of India:

“Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law”

51. From the above, it is clear that as regards the affairs of the temple in the matter of religion, the right of management to a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right, which no legislature can take away. On the other hand, as regards the administration of the properties, which a religious denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it is the right to administer such properties, but only in accordance with law, meaning thereby, the State can regulate the administration of the property of the religious denomination by means of law validly enacted. To put it otherwise, it is the religious denomination, which has been given the right to administer those properties in accordance with law. (Vide Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Shri Laxmindra Theertha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 = (1954) 67 L.W 1270).

52. Regarding the evidence with regard to establishment and maintenance of the temple, there are sufficient clinching evidences to show that the temple was not established by the appellant. The appellant Podhu Dikshidars themselves have admitted in the application filed before the Government, that the temple structures, as they exist now, were built from 10th-13th century mainly by the Chozha Kings and by Pandya Kings, who were ardent devotees of Lord Nataraja and thrown open for public worship. Several stone inscriptions will stand testimony to that fact. All these features will clearly establish the fact that it is not established by the appellant. The second interesting part of their admission is also very important. In the very same Revision Petition, in Paragraph 5 again they admitted as follows:

“It is also historical fact that Vaishnavite deity Sri Thillai Govindaraja was worshipped as a “Parivara Deity” installed in a small Sannadhi on the sides around the main shrine of Lord Nataraja and poojas were done to it by the Dikshidars themselves, known as Thillai Moovayiravar or Thillai Vazh Anthanar. Some of the songs recited by Thirumangai Azhwar and Kulasekara Azhwar will prove this facts. It is also history that due to certain conflicts between the Saivites and Vaishnavites the idol of Thillai Govindaraja was removed in or about 13th century and later during the rule of Vijayanagara kings one of their chieftains again reconstructed the Sri Thillai Govindaraja Sannadhi, after which (17th century) the small Sannidhi in its present form has come to stay and poojas are being performed by a separate sect of Vaishnavite priests.”

53. These two important historical records indisputably prove the fact that this temple was established by King Chozha and King Pandyas and the ruler of Vijayanagaram between 10th and 13th century further the historical records reveal that not only saivite but also vaishnavite are worshippers of their respective Gods, in one temple which further prove another vital fact that this temple at Chidambaram is not exclusively meant for saivite alone, but also worshipped by Vaishavites. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the protection under Article 26 cannot be availed in as such, as it was not exclusively established and maintained by one group of people.

54. “The phrase, “establish and maintain” cannot be separated. It shall be read conjunctively. Only when a religious denomination or a Section thereof established a religious institution, it gets the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion with respect to that institution. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 662. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the temple is a denominational temple, can be accepted only if the appellant proves that they established the religious institution and that they are part of a religious denomination and that they are administering the same continuously.

55. This Court need not search for any other evidence to reach the conclusion whether the temple was built or founded by the appellant. In view of the admitted statements made by the appellant as above, it is proved beyond doubt neither the appellant nor their predecessors or forefathers were founders of the temple, and entitled to have the benefit of protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. A three-Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adi Visheswara, cited supra, held that if the temple is built or established or founded by some people and subsequently others started managing the temple cannot be allowed to complain that the temple's property is interfered by action of taking over by the Government for a reason that the action does not offend the right of their livelihood guaranteed under Article 21. In this Judgment, it has also been held that the State can always step into prevent mis-use, mis-management and irreligious acts, actions and conduct, and to regulate proper and efficient management and administration, performance of all religious services, ceremonies and rituals in systematic and organized manner by competent persons on the religious side of performing ceremonies without interruption. Therefore, it is clear that temple is not a denominational temple and therefore, in the event of any mismanagement or financial irregularities, the State can always interfere with the mal-administration, in which event, the member of the appellant cannot complain that their rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution have been infringed by appointment of Executive Officer. It has been held in a number of cases that the practice of religious faith according to tenets of Hindu religion, custom and usage stand protected by the Act. But the secular management of the religious affairs in the temple is secular part. The legislature has power to interfere with and regulate proper and efficient management of the temple and this aspect of the question has been elaborately considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bhurinath v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, JT 1997 (1) SCC 546 as well as in the case of Adi Visheswara of Kashi Viswanath Temple, JT 1997 (4) SC 124.

56. In Adi Visheswara case, it has been held that,

“Article 26 requires to be carefully scrutinized to extend protection and it must be confined to such religious practices as are an essential and integral part of it and no other. The management of the properties was in the hands of the officers. Article 26 does not create rights in any denomination or a section which it never had. It merely safeguards and guarantees the continuance of a right which such denomination or the section had. If the denomination never had the right to manage property in favour of a denominational institution as per reasonable terms on which the endowment was created, it cannot be had to have it. It had not acquired the said right as a result of Article 26 and that the practice and the custom prevailing in that behalf which obviously is consistent with the terms of the endowment should not be ignored.”

57. In the light of the above line of decisions, the only conclusion that could be reached is the appellant are not entitled to the protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the third point is also answered against the appellant.

58. In respect of mis-management, the Government has justified the appointment of Executive Officer by citing the following reasons:

i) The Podhu Dikshidars miserably failed to maintain and manage a huge extent of about 400 acres of cultivable lands donated by various devotees in the name of Sri Sabhanayagar Temple, Chidambaram.

ii) Non accounting of gold ingots and gold coins worth of Rs. 2.2 lakhs kept in the Karuvolum deducted by Assistant Commissioner, Cuddalore in the presence of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and District Superintendent of Police.

iii) There was also loss of 860 grams of Gold in melting the old jewels.

iv) Non accounting of gold article received as donation by the temple.

59. On a complaint at the instance of one Mr. K. Nataraja Kunchita Deekshidar on 11.05.1981 alleging many financial, gold plates, gold coins, gold jewels, irregularities in the temple, when the Assistant Commissioner of H.R & C.E asked the Dikshidars to show the gold jewels, gold coins etc., for which the Podhu Dikshidars refused to show by asking a week's time for production of the same. However, after such refusal, the Assistant Commissioner searched the relevant place like Almirahs in the temple, surprisingly, several gold items were recovered. However, the Podhu Dikshidars claiming that the seized gold items are properties belonged to their family and refused to part with the same. At the same time, they were not able to prove from whom these jewels were accepted as gift and no receipts therefor were shown to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, after seizure of the above said gold items has found that 4717 gms of gold were melted and kept in their custody without any permission from any officers. Still the Assistant Commissioner, found unaccounted gold items and hundreds of silver lamp items like (Kuthu villaku) from the temple Almirahs.

60. By referring to various other complaints of mis-management and report of Assistant Commissioner (dated 20.07.1982), the then Commissioner thought it fit to appoint the Executive Officer for proper, better and efficient management of the temple.

61. Therefore, a show cause notice was given asking the Podhu Dikshidars to give an explanation as to why an Executive Officer should not be appointed. After receiving the show cause notice, a comprehensive inquiry was conducted by the Commissioner on 15.07.1985, 23.09.1985, 04.11.1985, 09.12.1985, 27.01.1986, 31.03.1986, 04.08.1986, 07.10.1986, 22.12.1986, 23.02.1987, 31.03.1987, 06.07.1987 and 22.07.1987 The Podhu Dikshidars without giving any plausible explanation on the alleged mis-management and irregularities, submitted an unacceptable explanations by citing Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, and also certain decisions given by the Supreme Court of India, in support of their objections to not to appoint Executive Officer.

62. In the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner, the following startling revelations surfaced by surprising all eyes waiting on this issues:

i) The appellant never maintained any accounts either in respect of 400 acres of lands or in respect of Gold offerings, silver offerings, Hundial Offerings, donation of cash, lands and other movable and immovable for ages.

ii) The appellant never maintained at any point of time any account fixing the rent and collecting rent payable to the temple from the tenants of the lands.

iii) The appellant had not realised the income due to the temple.

iv) Even huge offerings made to the God by the worshippers have not been accounted for by them.

v) Missing of gold jewels were alarming. Income derived from various stalls in the temple and collection of entrance fees and Dharshan and Aaradhanai fees were seen issued in a piece of paper without indicating the value of fees. The collection for performance of Abishekam and archana have been richly swindled among all the Podhu Dikshidars.

63. It may not be out of place to mention here that the learned Additional Advocate General demonstrated that three sale deeds dated 15.05.1985, 04.02.1988 and 10.02.1988 have been executed by some of the Podhu Diskhidars alienating some of the properties, as if they are their ancestral properties, but the adangal extract still stands in the name of the temple.

64. In view of these above startling revelations, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that since the Podhu Dikshidars have continuously neglected to perform their duty, it has become necessary to appoint Executive Officer to identify the lands belonging to temple and several kattalais and set in motion the action to realise income due to the temple.

65. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court whether the Mathathipathi are legally bound to manage the accounts and all the personal gift made to the Mathathipathi so as to see those are properly utilized for the purpose of the math in accordance with its objects and propagation of Hindu Dharma. The apex Court in paragraph 43 of the judgment reported in 1996 (8) SCC 705 [Sri Sri Sri Laxmana v. State of Andhra Pradesh] has ruled that any action taken by the state fastening an obligation on mathadhipathi to maintain accounts of the receipts as personal gifts made to him, does not amount to interference with religion. Equally, in respect of gifts of properties or money made to the mathadhipathi as gifts intended for the benefit of the math, he is bound under law as trustee, to render accounts for the receipts and disbursement and cause the accounts in that behalf produced from time to time before the Commissioner or any authorised person in that behalf, whenever so required is part of administration of properties of the math and also held that the questions relating to administration of properties relating to math or specific endowment are not matters of religion under Article 26(b). They are secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on the Mahant. The intervention of the legislature in that behalf is in the interest of the math itself. He is, therefore, enjoined to maintain accounts in the regular course of the administration and maintenance of the math. Therefore, the Apex Court has held that introduction or making any amendment in H.R and C.E Act, is therefore, permissible statutory intervention under Articles 25(2) (a) and 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution.

66. This Court in Ponnumani Dikshidar's case, 1939 (2) MLJ 11, had come to a conclusion on similar occasion that the Board can always take action if it has reason to believe that the temple is being mismanaged.

67. On a cursory perusal of the materials on record, one can, safely infer that this great ancient temple founded between 10th and 13th century by Chozha and Pandya Kings have received by way of donations innumerable gifts in the form of lands, gold pieces, gems, silver, cash, grains etc., would indicate that this temple would be one of the richest temples in the country, had there been a proper and efficient administration either by the Board or by the Podhu Dikshidars, atleast from the year 1939, because the record shows that this temple even now owns more than 400 acres of fertile lands. Had there been a proper administration and management of these vast lands with revenue collections from Hundials this temple would have become another richest temple like, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam in Andhra Pradesh and Palani Murugan Temple in Tamil Nadu. Since there has been heavy opposition from the Podhu Dikshidars from the year 1885, one reason or the other for taking over the temple administration for serious maladministration, the administration of the temple could not be toned up, though there was a scheme in the year 1939. Again it is not known, why the Board has given up the administration. Be that as it may, the fact remains, it has been held by this Court in the year 1939 that if there is mis-management, the Board can always take action.

68. The Executive Officer so appointed has submitted a list of donation received for four days from 05.02.2009 to 08.02.2009 as follows:

Sl. No. Date Receipt No. Name of the Donar Amount in Rs. 1 5.2.2009 36 B. Jayaraman 50/- 2 5.2.2009 37 R. Kaviya 200/- 3 5.2.2009 38 Dr. Vadivukkarasi 300/- 4 5.2.2009 39 T. Jayaseela 200/- 5 5.2.2009 40 A. Ramkumar 51/- 6 5.2.2009 41 M. Sanjai 500/- 7 5.2.2009 42 S. Mohan 250/- 8 5.2.2009 43 S. Ramesh Gupta 250/- 9 5.2.2009 44 K. Ravi 250/- 10 5.2.2009 45 Rajarajan 251/- 11 5.2.2009 46 Diviyavani 251/- 12 5.2.2009 47 Rajendiran 251/- 13 5.2.2009 48 Sundaresan 250/- 14 5.2.2009 49 R. Sivakumar 250/- 15 5.2.2009 50 K. Rathakrishnan 500/- 16 5.2.2009 1 B. Jayakumar 500/- 17 5.2.2009 2 Loganathan 500/- 18 5.2.2009 3 J. Prabhakaran 100/- 19 5.2.2009 4 C. Shanmugam 100/- 20 5.2.2009 5 J. Archana 1000/- 21 5.2.2009 6 M. Arthi 1000/- 22 5.2.2009 7 C. Arun Agoram 1000/- 23 5.2.2009 8 M. Ajet Agoram 1000/- 24 5.2.2009 9 C. Arjun Agoram 1000/- 25 6.2.2009 10 Vijayakumar 100/- 26 6.2.2009 11 B. Mani 500/- 27 6.2.2009 12 V. Muthu Ganapathy 500/- 28 6.2.2009 13 S. Saratha 500/- 29 6.2.2009 14 Gnanasekaran 500/- 30 6.2.2009 15 Kasinathan 500/- 31 6.2.2009 16 Jothilingam 500/- 32 6.2.2009 17 G. Devaraj Naidu 500/- 33 6.2.2009 18 S. Srinivasa Kumar 250/- 34 6.2.2009 19 S. Balathandayutham 100/- 35 6.2.2009 20 R. Prabakaran 1001/- 36 6.2.2009 20 Srinivasan 50/- 37 6.2.2009 20 R. Eniyan 50/- 38 7.2.2009 21 K.G Jayakumar 100/- 39 7.2.2009 22 G. Sriram Thiyagarajan 100/- 40 7.2.2009 23 G. Rashina 100/- 41 7.2.2009 24 V. Sathiyanathan 100/- 42 7.2.2009 25 S.R Soundararajan 250/- 43 7.2.2009 26 K. Govindaraj Babu 500/- 44 7.2.2009 27 P. Selvarangam 1000/- 45 7.2.2009 28 G. Padmavathi 1000/- 46 7.2.2009 29 G. Sriram 500/- 47 7.2.2009 30 G. Pavithra 500/- 48 7.2.2009 31 S. Kaveri 500/- 49 7.2.2009 32 S. Arunkumar 500/- 50 7.2.2009 33 P.R Rajagopal 51/- 51 8.2.2009 34 Santhi 1000/- 52 8.2.2009 35 Vengaiammal 300/- 53 8.2.2009 36 Saravanan 500/- 54 8.2.2009 37 M. Saraswathi 500/- 55 8.2.2009 38 D. Kumar 500/- 56 8.2.2009 39 Jayanthi 1000/- 57 8.2.2009 40 K. Lakshmi 500/- 58 8.2.2009 41 Arun Prasad 500/- 59 8.2.2009 42 D. Pachayappan 100/- 60 8.2.2009 43 S. Dilak Gandhi 100/- 61 8.2.2009 44 Dr. K.M Ravichandran 3000/- 62 8.2.2009 45 Siva Muruga 100/- Total 28356/-

69. Again he has submitted another list showing the receipt of donation received from 09.02.2009 to 12.02.2009 as follows:

Sl. No. Date Receipt No. Name of the Donar Amount in Rs. 1 2/9/09 46 S. Jayaraj 50/- 2 2/9/09 47 S. Saraswathi Chandrasekar 101/- 3 2/9/09 48 S. Subramanian 1000/- 4 2/9/09 49 S. Selvaraju 20/- 5 2/9/09 50 S. Subramanian 20/- 6 2/9/09 51 S. Rajadurai 20/- 7 2/9/09 52 R. Tamilselvan 500/- 8 2/9/09 53 D. Kalpana 500/- 9 2/9/09 54 D. Dinesh 500/- 10 2/9/09 55 D. Mukesh 500/- 11 2/9/09 56 V. Saroja 500/- 12 2/9/09 57 M. Venugopal 250/- 13 2/9/09 58 S. Jagan 250/- 14 2/9/09 59 M. Dhanalakshmi 250/- 15 2/9/09 60 D. Venkatesan 250/- 16 2/9/09 61 P.T Muthu 500/- 17 2/9/09 62 M. Selvi 500/- 18 2/10/09 63 S. Babu 50/- 19 2/10/09 64 V. Ravichandran 500/- 20 2/10/09 65 K. Perumal 500/- 21 2/10/09 66 C. Murugan 250/- 22 2/10/09 67 D. Selvi 250/- 23 2/10/09 68 V. Paranthamakkannan 250/- 24 2/10/09 69 R. Ramani 250/- 25 2/10/09 70 K. Diwakar 250/- 26 2/10/09 71 S. Parameswara Kurukkal 250/- 27 2/10/09 72 M. Manokaran 500/- 28 2/11/09 73 Gomathy Govindan 10/- 29 2/11/09 74 M. Manimaran 500/- 30 2/11/09 75 P. Shanthi 500/- 31 2/11/09 76 G. Nallammal 500/- 32 2/11/09 77 D. Rajini 1000/- 33 2/11/09 78 D. Arunachalam 100/- 34 2/12/09 79 M. Gomathy 10/- 35 2/12/09 80 Enterprising enterprises 200/- 36 2/12/09 81 S. Ulaganathan 100/- 37 2/12/09 82 K. Mangavu 100/- 38 2/12/09 83 S. Balasubramanian 100/- 39 2/12/09 84 S. Murugan 500/- 40 2/12/09 85 D. Venkateswaran 1000/- 41 2/12/09 86 N. Srilakshmi 1000/- 42 2/12/09 87 Narayanamoorthy 500/- 43 2/12/09 88 Arulmozhi 100/- Total 15881/-

70. That apart, the Executive Officer having seen the importance of renovating the old beauty of antiquity, architectural and historical value of the temple, in consultation with the Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E, Department has submitted a proposal for grant of Rs. 50,00,00,000.00/- (Rupees fifty crores) from the 13th Finance Commission to carry out repairs, renovation of East side entrance, Ornamental work of Thousand Pillar Hall, renovation of third Prakaram, reconstruction of Hundred Pillar Mandapam, reconstruction of Subramaniyaswamy Sannathi, construction of bathroom and toilets, provision for drainage management etc., Further it is seen that Kumbabishekam of the temple was performed on 11.2.1987 by the Renovation committee. Large scale of renovation works were carried out in the temple through the Renovation Committee approved by H.R & C.E Department at a cost of RS. 46 lakhs, out of which Government grants were Rs. 20 lakhs and diversion of funds from other temples were Rs. 6 lakhs and public donations through sale of tickets were about Rs. 20 lakhs. The performance of Kumbabishekam of the temple under the guidance of H.R & C.E Department would clearly indicate the interest evinced by the department in proper administration of the temple.

71. The order of appointing the Executive Officer by proceedings RC. No. 52574/82.L1 dated 05.08.1987 contains Appendix defining powers and duties to be exercised and performed respectively by the Executive Officer and the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars. By a bare reading of Appendix, it is seen that the Executive Officer was put in custody of all immovable, livestocks, grains and other valuables. The Executive Officer shall be responsible for the collection of all income and money due to the institution. The Executive Officer has to function in coordination with the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars. In fact, as seen from Rule 15, the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars shall operate the Bank Accounts. But cheque book and pass book shall remain in the custody of the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall have separate account in his name as provided under Rule 4(b) of these Rules and the same shall be operated upon by him.

72. Rule 6(A) also makes this clear that the office holders and servants shall work under the immediate control over the Superintendence of Executive Officer, subject to the disciplinary control of the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars under section 56 of the H.R & C.E Act. Thus, it is not as if by the appointment of Executive Officer, the Podhu Dikshidars are displaced from the temple in performance of rituals or administration. Only for better management and, for efficient administration of a great ancient temple, it has been stipulated in the rule both the Executive Officer and Podhu Dikshidars are to function in co-ordination with each other. Therefore, it is very clear that there is a clear demarcation of the powers to be exercised by the Executive Officer and Podhu Dikshidars, which could only for better and efficient administration of the temple.

73. Even after the findings of the commissioner of proving that there has been a large scale mis-appropriation of the temple fund, and when the status of immovable properties of 400 acres of temple land, are continuously in darkness for more than centuries, and the improvements made by the Executive Officer after his appointment and the further steps taken by him, as stated supra, still if this Court interferes with the appointment of Executive Officer, this Court would be failing in its duty to safeguard and preserve the ancient and historical values and importance of the temple, with the result, the grand old ancient temple standing as a testimony of Hindu Culture and Civilization to the world, would be reduced down to the ground. Consequently, the Podhu Dikshidars whose livelihood are made out from the temple income would also be lost. Point No. 4 is also answered against the appellant.

74. In view of the reasons in the foregoing paragraphs and in the light of the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ appeal No. 181 of 2009 and it is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the reasons stated for impleadment of parties in paragraphs 24 to 29, the Writ Appeals Nos. 182 and 183 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

VCJ/VCS