Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5830
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN
S.R.M. Ramamurthi Poosari, Chairman, Board of Trustees & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Endowment Department, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition Nos.19636 & 20146 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 to 5 of 2009 & 2 to 5 of 2009
Decided on : 23-12-2009
For the Appearing Parties:K. Alagirisamy, S.C. for R. Sugumaran, Advocate, R. Shanmugasundaram, S.C. for S.D. Ramalingam, Advocate, T. Chandrasekaran, Spl.G.P. R. Gandhi, S.C. for S. Conscious Elango, Advocate, Hema Sampath, S.C. for Mahathi Chari, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that impugned orders must be passed after due notice and in compliance with natural justice. The court also emphasized the importance of conducting the election in accordance with court orders and with the presence of designated officials.
Headnote:
Election - Temple Trusteeship - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, Section 6(20), Section 46 - The judgment discusses the impugned orders cancelling and appointing the temple trustees, the violation of election procedures, and the appointment of a Fit Person. The court held that the impugned orders were passed without due notice and in violation of natural justice. It directed the election to be conducted in the presence of the District Revenue Officer and an Advocate Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the cancellation of a temple trusteeship election and the appointment of a Fit Person as trustee. The election was marred by disputes and violations of court orders, leading to the appointment of the Fit Person as an interim measure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were passed without due notice and in violation of natural justice. It held that the election should have been conducted in the presence of the District Revenue Officer and an Advocate Commissioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cancellation of the election, the appointment of the Fit Person, and the violation of election procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were passed without due notice and in violation of natural justice. It directed the election to be conducted in the presence of the District Revenue Officer and an Advocate Commissioner.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders, directed the election to be conducted in the presence of the District Revenue Officer and an Advocate Commissioner, and ordered the payment of remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner.
W.P.No.19636 of 2009 has been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 18.09.2009, an order cancelling the election conducted on 210. 2008 for the Trusteeship of the temple Arulmigu Mariamman and for conducting the election afresh.
2. W.P.No.20146 of 2009 has been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 23.09.2009, appointing the fifth respondent herein as trustee, as an interim measure till the election is conducted for the trusteeship of the temple.
3. The averments made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.19636 of 2009, in nutshell, are set out here under:-
.(a) The petitioner is one of the hereditary trustees / poosaries of Arulmighu Mariammal Thirukkoil, Irukkangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhungar District. At the instance of respondents 5 and 6, the third respondent initiated suo motu proceedings in O.A.No.4 of 2000 for modification of the existing scheme and the same is pending. Since the term of office of the Managing Trustee would expire on 210. 2008, a meeting for election of Managing Trustee was convened to be held on 110. 2008 by a notice dated 30.09.2008. Except respondents 5 and 6, all the other eight trustees were supporting him. Since respondents 5 and 6 felt that they would not be elected as Chairman, they tried to postpone the election on one reason or other. Writ petitions were filed before this Court as well as before the Madurai Bench of this Court by the persons set up by respondents 5 and 6 with a view to stall the election.
(b) They have failed in their attempt before this Court. Further, they have filed a revision petition through one S.R.Muthuraman Poosari in R.P.No.48 of 2008 challenging the election notice dated 30.09.2008 and for an order of staying the election. The second respondent, without giving any notice, passed an exparte order staying the participation of the petitioner in the election. The third respondent, in his proceedings dated 10. 2008, directed postponement of election by ten days. The Inspector of Police thereafter, forced the Managing Trustee to stop the conduct of election on the ground of law and order problem. Hence, the election was postponed.
.(c) The second respondent once again passed an exparte order extending his earlier order and granted stay of the petitioners participation in the election. The petitioner therefore, has to file a writ petition in W.P.No.9157 of 2008 to quash the said order. The then Chairman of the Board of Trustee also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9159 of 2008 by impleading all the trustees praying for an order to go ahead with the election scheduled to be held on 210. 2008. Thereupon, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the election to be conducted in the presence of the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar.
4. The averments made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.20146 of 2009, in nutshell, are set out here under:-
.(a) The petitioners are the Hereditary Trustees of Arulmighu Mariamman Temple at Irrukangudi Village in Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. It is a temple defined under Section 6 (20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, (herein after referred to as the said Act). The temple is governed by the scheme framed by the Board of Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, (herein after referred to as H.R & C.E.), Madras vide order No.1000 dated 04.05.1935. In and by the scheme, the temple and its properties shall be administered and managed only by the Board of Hereditary Trustees nominating or electing one among them to be the Chairman. They are elected once in three years.
(b) The Government passed an order on 210. 1991 appointing an Executive Officer to the temple. Thus, the temple was classified under clause (iii) of Section 46 of the said Act. Originally, the temple was founded by one Ramaswamy Poosari, the forefather of the first petitioner and after him, his sons R
