(1.) The appellant is a 'Ulthurai Sthanikam' service holder in Arulmigu Devarajaswamy temple in Kancheepuram. Though he is not permitted to touch the Idol in the Shrine and Sadari, he can light lamp and other deepams at the time of poojas and festivals and hand over them to the archaka. The other duties carried out by him are keeping the Garbagraha clean, cleaning the pooja vessals and receiving of jewels and assisting in the conduct of poojas and singing Tamil songs before the God when alights in steps (Kattiyam).
(2.) The appellant has a daughter in United States of America. On 7.6.1991 he applied to the Assistant Commissioner/Administrative Trustee seeking permission to go abroad to see his daughter, that is to say, purely on a personal visit and not for any religious purpose. By an order dated 25.7.1991, the Assistant Commissioner/ Adminsitrative Trustee permitted him to go abroad as requested. After visiting his daughter, he returned on 22.10.1991. On 25.10.1991 he sent a communication to the Assistant Commissioner seeking permission to resume his duties. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner addressed a letter to Thiru.A.V.Narasimhachari, who is the Ahama Pandithar and who fixes time for the temple festivals like Brahmotsavam in order to know as to whether the appellant, since went abroad and stayed for three months, can resume his duties. The said Narasimhachari sent a reply dated 1.11.1991 that the appellant can resume his work and duties after doing atonement (prayachitham) and also indicated what all Prayachithams to be done. He also pointed out that in a similar instance at Srirangam temple, a person was allowed to resume his duties. The Local Sthaniga hereditory Mirasidars Association President in his letter dated 4.11.1991 wrote that since the appellant has done the atonement (prayachitham), he can be permitted to resume his duties. Following the instance of similar nature in Srirangam temple, where the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 29.9.1988 permitted such a person to resume duty, the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 10.1.1992 mentioned that if the appellant has performed the necessary atonements (prayachithams), the Assistant Commissioner himself pass an appropriate orders and made it clear that henceforth such permission will not be granted.
(3.) One Thiru N.R.Thathachariyar and others sent telegrams to the Commissioner against granting permission to the appellant while Thiru Renganathan and others requested the Commissioner by their telegrams to permit the appellant to resume duties. It was resolved that a general enquiry may be conducted and a decision can be taken and following this, it was made known by beat of tom-tom in that area that an enquiry would be conducted on 28.2.1992 in the office of the Arulmigu Devarajaswamy Thirukkoil, Kancheepuram and permitted persons to convey their respective pleas/views in this regard.