RAJEEVAN P.C. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the first respondent rejecting an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the petitioners in a proceeding initiated under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1951 (Hereinafter referred to as, the HR & CE Act).

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are members of a large family called Chekkura Puthalathu Poothady Illam, which is also known as Panoly Tharavadu and that they have a family temple which conducts temple festivals for which there are organised festival committees. It is alleged by the petitioners that at the instance of certain persons, who have vested political interests, Ext.P1 complaint was filed with ulterior motives and even though the Deputy Commissioner under the HR & CE Act has no right to take over a family temple, he has treated Ext.P1 representation as one under Section 57 of the HR & CE Act and numbered it as OA.No.9/2018. Pursuant to such action, a Notification was issued by the first respondent and objections were called for, for the purpose of inquiring into the representation in exercise of the powers under Section 57 of the HR & CE Act. It is averred in the writ petition that some persons who are nearby residents of the temple have filed objections against the representation, while some of the family members who are already parties in O.A.No.9/2018 filed application before the first respondent seeking stay of all further proceedings in OA.No.9/2018 till a decision is taken in a suit initiated as OS.No.339/2018 pending before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. It is alleged that the said application was rejected.

(3.) While so, on coming to know about the proceedings in OA.No.9/2018, petitioners filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC as IA.No.3/2020 seeking to implead themselves in the enquiry under Section 57 of the HR & CE Act. The impleading petition is produced as Ext.P4. According to the writ petitioners, their application for impleading has been rejected by a non-speaking order. The said order is produced as Ext.P5 and as mentioned earlier, it is impugned in this writ petition.