1.K.Ragava Dikshitar,S/O.Krish v. 1.The Exe Offr,Sri Rajagopala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.03.2015

CORAM

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.Nos.216 and 217 of 2001 W.A.No.216 of 2001

1. K.Raghava Dikshitar

2. R.Lakshminarayana Dikshitar ... Appellants -vs1. The Executive Officer, Sri Rajagopalaswami Devasthanam, Mannargudi, Thanjavur District.

2. Pichaikani, Chairman ... Respondents W.A.No.217 of 2001 Sthanikam C.Rajagopala Dikshithar ... Appellant -vsThe Executive Officer, Sri Rajagopalaswami Devasthanam, Mannargudi, Thanjavur District.

... Respondent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 13.12.2000 passed in W.P.Nos.3799 of 1996 and 9366 of 1989 on the file of this Court.

Petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and the affidavits filed therewith the Highcourt will be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus calling for the records directing the respondent herein not to implement nearly introduced Archanai Ticket System Rs.1-(1) (WP.No.9366/89) (2)

50paise (3799/96) respectively per ticket or any other Archanai Ticket system for performing Archanais in Sri Raja Gopalaswami Temple, Mannarkudi.

For Appellant in both WAs.

: Mr.B.Rabu Manohar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiagarajan for Mr.M.V.Venkateseshan for R-1 in WA.216/01 & for Sole Respt.

in WA.217/01 : No appearance for R-2 in WA.216/01 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) Dispute pertains to the introduction of Archanai tickets for Re.1.00 and p 0.50 respectively and it is the case of the appellants that as per the usage and custom, it could not have been imposed. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, thus, dismissed the writ petitions.

2.Learned counsel for the appellants states that he endeavoured to obtain instructions, despite the fact that the bundle has been taken away from him and apparently, no alternative arrangements have been made. He submits that he is receiving no instructions from the second appellant (in W.A.No.216/2001), while the first appellant is stated to have passed away quite some time back. 3.In view of aforesaid, it is obvious that no one is interested in prosecuting these appeals and we, thus, close the proceedings. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

sra To The Executive Officer, Sri Rajagopalaswami Devasthanam, Mannargudi, Thanjavur District.

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(HRRCE), S.R.No.15437 W.A.Nos.216 and 217 of 2001 KM(CO) CA(31/03/2015)