SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Mad) 519

Madras High Court
RAMANUJAM,RATNAM
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Dept., Madras - Appellant
Versus
K.Jothiramalingam - Respondent
Decided On : 12/11/1984

Advocates:
Mr. C. Chinnaswami, Spl. Govt. Pleader for Appellant; Mr. W. C. Thiruvengadam, for Respondents.

Violation of the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-Section 45(1)-Management of temple by hereditary trustee-Executive Officer appointed to the temple by the Commissioner-Opportunity of service of notice and hearing not given to the hereditary trustee.

       

Judgement

RATNAM, J.:- This appeal at the instance of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') is directed against the order in W. P. 2907 of 1976 quashing the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner for the appointment of an Executive Officer in Arulmigu Kalivaradarajar Temple, Kumarakuppam, Valavanur village, Villupuram Taluk, South Arcot Dist., in the exercise of the powers vested in him under S.45(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The circumstances giving rise to the appeal may be shortly stated. The respondent herein is the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Kalivaradarajar Temple, having been so declared by the judgment of this Court in A.S. No. 157 of 1961, dated 27-11-1963. According to the respondent, he had been in his capacity as such hereditary trustee submitting budgets, dhittam, maintaining relevant statutory registers, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, which had been duly approved by the appropriate authority and had been looking after the administration and management of the temple and maintaining its accounts, which had also been duly audited by the appropriate authorities under the Act. While matters stood thus, proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), Department, Cuddalore, to associate non-hereditary trustees with the respondent under S.49 read with S.47(2) of the Act, on certain grounds. Though the respondent submitted his objections, without affording any opportunity to him, the Assistant Commissioner called for applications for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees, which led to the filing of R.P. 242 of 1974, by the respondent and his obtaining stay of the notification calling for applications for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. Ignoring the orders secured by the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable (Administration) department, Cuddalore, proceeded to appoint two non-hereditary trustees to be associated with the respondent and that led to the filing of another application by the respondent in R.P. No. 41 of 1975 before the Commissioner, wherein the respondent secured an order of stay. Later, the order of appointment of non-hereditary trustees was set aside by the Commissioner on the ground that the respondent had not been given an adequate opportunity to set out his objections. Despite these proceedings, the Commissioner, in the purported exercise of the powers vested in him under S.45(1) of the Act, initiated proceedings in R.C. No. 39086/E-3/76 dt. 1-6-1976, for the appointment of an Executive Officer, on the ground that such appointment will pave the way for the better administration of the temple and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Nagamman temple, Thumbur, Villupuram taluk, was appointed as Executive Officer, for Arulmigu Kalivaradarajar temple, Kumarakuppam, Villupuram taluk, as well.

3. In W. P. 2907 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein, he prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the Commissioner in R.C. No. 39086/ E3/76 dt. 1-6-1976, and quash the same on the ground that the Commissioner had, without reference to any acts of mismanagement of the institution by the respondent, proceeded to interfere with the management and administration of the institution by the respondent in his capacity as the hereditary trustee thereof without giving any notice, opportunity or even holding an enquiry as to the need for the appointment of such an Executive Officer and further that S.45 of the Act conferred an arbitrary, unguided and naked power on the Commissioner in that he could appoint an Executive Officer in respect of any temple, though such a temple was under the able and efficient management of the hereditary trustee, wi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top