Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
A. Govindaraju Thenna Thirayar & Others
Versus
The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department,Chennai-34 & Another
W.P.No.18150 of 2000
Decided on : 28-08-2008
Appointment of Executive Officer - Hereditary Trusteeship - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act - Section 45(1), Section 63(B) - The court quashed the appointment of the Executive Officer for the temple on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The court emphasized the need for notice and opportunity to be given to the hereditary trustee before appointing an Executive Officer, as per the provisions of Section 45(1) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of exercising the power under Section 45(1) cautiously, reasonably, and fairly, and the need for communication of reasons and calling for an explanation from the hereditary trustee before making such an appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, hereditary trustees of a temple, challenged the appointment of the second Respondent as Executive Officer without notice to them. The first Respondent justified the appointment citing mismanagement by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the Executive Officer without notice to the hereditary trustees violated Principles of Natural Justice. It emphasized the need for communication of reasons and calling for an explanation from the hereditary trustee before making such an appointment.
Issues: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in the appointment of the Executive Officer, Mismanagement by the hereditary trustees, Interpretation of Section 45(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of an Executive Officer under Section 45(1) of the Act should be made cautiously, reasonably, and fairly. Notice and opportunity should be given to the hereditary trustee before such appointment. The power under Section 45(1) does not mean that the Commissioner can displace a hereditary trustee at will and pleasure.
Final Decision: The court quashed the appointment of the Executive Officer solely on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice and directed the respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioners for the purpose of appointment of Executive Officer to the subject temple and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.1998 in proceedings R.Dis.No.120/98-2 L1 on the file of the first Respondent whereby the second Respondent was appointed as Common Executive Officer for the temple by name A/m. Karuppiah Swami @ Muthukaruppaiah Swami Temple at Karambakudi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
2.The factual matrix as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as under :-
(a) The public temple A/m.Karuppiah Swami @ Muthukaruppaiah Swami Temple at Karambakudi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioners before several decades and ever since the date of construction of the temple, it was exclusively managed and maintained by the family of the petitioners without any interruption. The petitioners have been in possession and management of the temple for several generations continuously and as such, they have been holding office of hereditary trusteeship in the temple in succession. Subsequently, the petitioners have also filed application in O.A.No.15/2000 under Section 63(B) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act for declaration of their hereditary trusteeship.
(b) While the matter stood thus, the second Respondent informed the petitioners as per letter dated 16.08.2000 that he has been appointed as Executive Officer of the said temple as per proceedings of the first respondent dated 06.02.1998 and required them to hand over charge of the temple. Even though the petitioners have apprised the second Respondent about their right to manage the temple, the same was not considered by the second Respondent and as such, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition to quash the appointment of the second Respondent as the Executive Officer of the subject temple.
.3. The first Respondent has filed counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. It was the contention of the first Respondent that originally one Thiru.K.Adaikalam was looking after the management of the temple as non-hereditary Trustee and after coming into force of the HR & CE Act, one Thiru.Mamundi, then Village Munsif of Karambakkudy was appointed as Fit Person under sub section (2) of Sec.11 of the Act. Subsequently, notice calling for applications for appointment of nonhereditary Trustees of the temple was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Pudukottai as per notification dated 21.04.1978 and Thiru.K.Adaikalam, father of the first petitioner had applied for the same and he was appointed as a single nonhereditary trustee as per proceeding dated 30.01.1982 for a period of three years. Later, the first petitioner and two others as well as the Inspector of HR & CE Department at Pudukottai were appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple and the said Trustees have not only failed to manage the institution and its properties but had also failed to produce any of the records for the income and expenditure of the temple. Therefore, it has become necessary in the interest of the temple to appoint an Executive Officer and accordingly, the second Respondent was appointed as Executive Officer of the temple as per proceedings dated 06.02.1998 and he took charge of the office on 28.09.2000.
4. It was further indicated in the counter affidavit that the term of office of the first Petitioner who was appointed as a non-hereditary trustee of the suit temple expired on 112. 2000. It was also contended that the Executive Officer was appointed only for the better and proper management of the temple, as the petitioners have failed to manage the temple properly, and as such, there was no illegality in the impugned Order calling for interference in the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned Order is violative of Principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as no notice has been issued to the petitioners before appointment
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
