EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU RANGANATHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM SRIRANGAM Vs. HIS HOLINESS SRIVAN SATAGOPA SRI VEDANTHA DESIKA YATHINDRA MAHADESIGAN 44TH JEER OF SRI AHOBILA MATH HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF VEDANTHA DESIKAR SANNADHI WITHIN THE PRECINCTS OF SRI RANGANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in these two Letters Patent Appeals is as to the requirement of issue of notice under S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE two appeals arise out of one suit. To state a few facts of the case, according to the plaintiff -His Holiness Srivan Satagopa Sri Vedantha De-sika Yathindra Mahadesigan, 44th Jeer of Sri Abhobila Math - Hereditary Trustee of Vedantha Desikar Sannadhi within the precincts of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, there is a shrine for Sri Vedantha Desikar inside the temple. It was an established usage to bring the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar along with other Achariars and Alwars to the Sanctum Sanctorum of Lord Ranganatha in the temple on the days of Yugathi, Deepavali and Kanu, etc. with Vadakalai Paraphernalia, Patram, Vazhithirunamam, etc. Unfortunately disputes arose between THEnkalai and Vadakalai vaishnavites and in this regard there were criminal proceedings also and the THEnkalais obstructed taking the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar to the said Sanctum Sanctorum of Sri Ranganathaswami. THE Plaintiff made an application to trustees of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam to take the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar on the said dates, i.e., Yugathi, Deepavali and Kanu days as per the usage and to that the trustees said that if the idol were to be taken to the Sanctum Sanctorum it should bear only THEnkalai mark on its forehead and not Vadakalai mark. THE plaintiff filed an application in this regard before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, but he accepted the case of the trustees that the idol should bear THEnkalai mark. An appeal by the plaintiff to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, failed and therefore the present suit under S.70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act.

(2.) THE suit having been filed against, among other defendants, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam, an objection was raised that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) THE plaintiff appealed to the High Court. Venugopal, J. in A.S.No.942 of 1978 found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under S.63 of the Act and the order passed by the Commissioner under S.69 are quasi-judicial orders and to pass these orders the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner have exercised quasi judicial powers and therefore they cannot be termed as Public Officers purporting to act in their official capacity within the meaning of S.80, C.P.C. and hence when a statutory suit is filed under S.70 of the Act no notice under S.80, C.P.C. is necessary. On these findings the learned Judge held that the suit is maintainable and he allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial Court for trial on other issues on merits and disposal of the suit afresh.