Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, strenuously relies on the resolution passed by Veerasaiva community as well as order of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. He contends that when a peethadhipathi fails to nominate the successor, it is open for the Veerasaiva community to nominate another person as per the usage of the custom for peethadhipathi of Virakthimutt. Per contra, learned counsel for first respondent, Manager, Group Temples, Kalyandurg, Sri K.V.N.Bhupal, relies on Sections 51 to 54 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) in support of the contention that when mathadhipathi nominates his successor, succession cannot be based on usage or custom. He also strenuously disputes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a custom in Veerasaiva community to pass a resolution nominating the person to be mathadhipathi. Lastly he would urge that the petitioner was a Sarpanch before taking his claim and that he got married in December 2001 and therefore even if he had any legitimate expectation by reason of the resolution passed by Veerasaiva community, having married and begot children he incurs disqualification under Section 51(1)(g) of the Act.
