provision, even after assuming charge as early as on 03.07.2019, the petitioners have not, so far, approached the 1st respondent seeking invocation of the power under Section 87 of the Act to redress grievance regarding failure on the part of respondents 3 and 4 to handover the movable and immovable properties of the temple, in accordance with law. That apart, it is submitted that Ext.P9 itself would reveal that even after assuming charge as early as on 03.07.2019, they made such a complaint with respect to the failure to hand over the charge of the aforementioned articles and properties, by respondents 3 and 4, only on 20.01.2020. Taking into account the nature of prayers as aforesaid and taking into account the time lapse in making Ext.P9 and also in view of the existence of specific power under Section 87 of the Act, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case where this Court should decide the issues involved invoking the jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, we are of the considered view that the parties can be relegated to avail the remedy available under Section 87 of the Act.
