20.Proceedings were initiated against the person in control, based on some private complaints and perhaps, it is in that context, the learned Judge of this Court considered the scope of Section 49 of the H.R. & C.E. Act on par with the powers vested with the Officers concerned under Section 45 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. However, the facts of the present case indicate that the petitioner had no right to continue or remain in control of the Temple property. The fact remains that the fourth respondent was appointed as a fit person in the year 1988, vide order dated 08.06.1988, bearing No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.8377/88/A5 by the third respondent Assistant Commissioner. The said order was not under implementation due to the pendency of the intervening civil suit filed by the petitioner's father and ex parte decree. However, the petitioner himself approached the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act and suffered an adverse order on 01.12.2021. That being the case, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. Even if the respondents had to issue notice, no different decision could have been arrived at by the respondents. It would have been empty formality. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In any event, the petitioner is in appeal. Therefore, the rights of the petitioner to continue in the Management of the Temple property will be subject to final outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 69 of the H.R. & C.E. Act before the Commissioner which is likely to be heard on 12.04.2022 by the Commissioner.
