K. Ekambara Iyer vs The Deputy Commissioner (Judicial Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments ( Administration ) Department, Madras-34 and The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras-34

Bakthavassalem, J.—The petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent under S. 63 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 in O.A. No. 134 of 1968 for declaration that he is the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Natesar and Sri Lakshmi

Narayana Perumal Temples at Keelapandal Village. The 1st respondent allowed his application and declared him as hereditary trustee. It seems

the three non-hereditary trustees who were appointed by the Department filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and by order dated 25-4-

1972 in A.P. No. 7 of 1972, the 2nd respondent set aside the order of the 1st respondent and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent for

fresh consideration. Against this order, the petitioner has come up to this Court in 1972 by way of writ petition in Writ Petition No. 1953 of 1972

questioning the order made by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was heard finally in 1977 and it was dismissed by a learned single Judge of

this Court on 6-1-1977. The complaint of the petitioner is that the matter has not been taken up for hearing by the 1st respondent afterwards. The

petitioner alleges in the affidavit that he sent a letter on 7-8-1980 requesting the 1st respondent to post the matter for enquiry. It seems the 1st

respondent returned his letter on 29-8-1980 stating that the petitioner must enclose the copy of the order of the 2nd respondent i.e., The

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras as well as the order in the writ petition stated supra (W.P.

No. 1953 of 1972) filed by the petitioner earlier before this Court. The petitioner sent a letter to the 1st respondent on 27-9-1980 complying with

the said request and also requesting that the petition may be posted for enquiry early. The petitioner having waited for another two years, sent a

lawyer''s notice on 3-5-1982 and requested the 1st respondent to fix a date for the hearing of O.A. No. 134 of 1968. It is alleged in the affidavit

that there was no response to that notice also on 7-9-1984, the petitioner sent another letter to the 1st respondent by registered post to take up

the application for early disposal. That letter was also not replied The petitioner sent another letter on 6-2-1985 to the 1st respondent with a copy

marked to the 2nd respondent with the same request for the early disposal of his application filed under S. 63 (b) of the Act. This letter also met

with the same result. Finally, the petitioner sent a letter on 30-11-1988 to both the respondents setting out the facts in detail and requesting them to

take up the application for enquiry and disposal. When all his attempts failed and the Department became deaf to his requests, the petitioner has

come up to this Court with the prayer for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to take up O.A. No. 134 of 1968 for

enquiry pursuant to the order of remand passed by the 2nd respondent in A.P. No. 7 of 1972. Notice of motion has been ordered by

Sivasubramaniam, J. on 7-12-1988.

Mr. N. Sridharan, learned Government Advocate took time from this Court to ascertain the facts. He informs me today that since the office of

the Deputy Commissioner has been disbanded, they were not able to lay their hands on the files, and hence the delay.

As I see, the petitioner is aged 76 and he has started the proceedings probably at the age of 56. The application filed by him is of the year 1968

and after all the proceedings, the enquiry has to be started in 1977 since a learned Judge of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 1953 of 1972

filed by the petitioner on 6-1-1977. For the past 11 years, nothing has been done and no action has been taken on the remanded application. The

statement of the learned Government Advocate that the office has been disbanded is very vague. I do not find any justification at all for keeping a

matter pending for 11 years. The petitioner was compelled to file a petition under S. 63(b) of the Act in 1968, because the Department interfered

with his Management by appointing non-hereditary trustees, and the case of the petitioner is that the temples in question were founded by his

ancestors and they have been in possession and management of the said temples. I am not able to understand the lethargy on the part of the

officers of the Department in keeping quiet by not even replying to the letters written by the petitioner. May be the office would have been

disbanded or the files would have got mixed up. This is entirely a different matter altogether. I am not able to find any reason for the Department

for not replying to any one of the letters written by the petitioner starting from 1968. It is very unfortunate that a department which is supposed to

look after the administration and property of the religious endowments within Tamil Nadu is not able to finalise the proceedings from 1977. Only

because of the inaction on the part of the department, the petitioner has been driven on the necessity of filing this writ petition. I am told at the Bar

that a private notice was issued to the first respondent and it was refused and returned.

From what I have stated above, I am of the view that this is a fit case where this Court has to issue a writ of mandamus. This is a very unusual

case where an application under S. 63(b) of the Act has been kept pending for more than ten years. I am of the view that this has been done

without any justifiable reason. I hope that the higher authorities will tone up the Department and pull up the officers who are in charge of this matter,

for the undue delay. Though the prayer in the writ petition is against the first respondent, I direct the second respondent to look into the matter

personally and see that the matter is disposed of by the first respondent within three months from today, and report the factum of such disposal to

this Court on or before 12-6-1969. I am constrained to award exemplary costs to the petitioner having regard to the facts of the case and

considering the mental agony of the petitioner at this age. I fix the costs at Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only). The writ petition is allowed with

costs as indicated above.