11. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Angala Parameswari principle being case law vide Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple Adimanaiveal House Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai and others , reported in (2009)(6) CTC 512 to say that it is imperative that the working sheet is served whenever Section 34-A of TN HR&CE Act is resorted to. In the case on hand owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may not be necessary to dilate further on that as this is a case where the Executive Officer of said Temple has to necessarily await the decision of the Government in response to said proceedings/recommendations of the Commissioner of TNHR&CE Dept. This is owing to earlier Government Orders the details of which have already been captured in the proceedings made on 06.01.2022 in W.P(MD) No.156 of 2022 (scanned and reproduced supra elsewhere in this order). Therefore in the same spirit, other case laws namely, Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Another reported in ( 2004) 3 SCC 214 , M.Gurusamy Nadar v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Administration Department, Chennai-34 & Ors ., reported in 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167 and an unreported order dated 16.07.2014 made by learned Single Judge in W.P(MD) Nos.167 of 2013 & 15336 of 2012 need not be delved into at this stage. The simple reason is the Executive Officer has put the cart before the horse by issuing the impugned notices computing the arrears on the basis of enhanced lease rent before the Government has taken a decision on the aforementioned said proceedings/recommendations of Commissioner. On this simple point, the impugned notices in the nineteen writ petitions will have to be dislodged but the same can either be resuscitated, reissued or suitably issued depending on decision to be taken by the Government. To be noted, in a normal legal drill under Section 34-A of TN HR&CE Act, the matter need not to be escalated to the Commissioner of TNHR&CE Dept or the Government at the first stage i.e., at the lease rent fixation stage. Owing to the peculiar facts of the case on hand, particularly, the earlier Government Orders in this case, the Executive Officer of said Temple (fourth respondent) has to await the decision of the Government. Therefore, this aspect of the matter will not serve a precedent as it is unanimous from the unique facts and circumstances of this case.
