The proposed Scheme for leasing out the commercial complex did not have a legal basis to be implemented without the required statutory sanction by the State Government. Compliance with the statutory provisions of the Act is essential for any proposed Scheme related to religious institutions.

1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Department, dated 21.12.2010 and the subsequent modification order dated 14.02.2011.

2. The petitioner is a President of the Hindu Baktha Jana Sabai, which is a registered Society. He is a resident of Tiruparunkundram, Madurai District and is a pious Hindu and believer in fostering inter-religious friendship and filed the above writ petition as a Hindu worshipper.

(a) Arulmigu Madanagopalaswamy Thirukoil, Madurai, is one of the ancient temples. There was an advertisement in Daily Thanthi dated 5.01.2011, calling for tenders for allotment of shops in the proposed commercial complex in the temple. It is stated that on 11.01.2011, the petitioner sent a representation to respondents 1 and 2, opposing the proposed construction and he has also asked for information regarding the sanction if any granted by the Government for the proposed commercial complex.

(b) The petitioner has received a communication from the second respondent on 24.01.2011, stating that till 24.01.2011 no final order granting sanction for the proposed construction was passed and therefore, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai on 2.02.2011. The proposed commercial complex sought to be constructed is within the precincts of the temple, is prohibited under Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, "the Act"), since the temple property cannot be converted into commercial complex with political motive and by putting up commercial complex, the Temple’s appearance will be obstructed.

(c) The petitioner has received a copy of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.12.2010, calling for tenders, for construction of commercial complex in the temple precinct. Questioning the same the petitioner has filed W.P No. 5003 of 2011. By an order dated 1.03.2011, this Court, has permitted the third respondent to receive the tenders, but not to open the same until further orders.

(d) Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a petition to vacate the said order of stay along with counter affidavit in the above writ petition, and when the matter came up before this court, it was informed that the impugned order dated 21.12.2010, was modified by the second respondent on 14.02.2011 and therefore, the said W.P No.5003 of 2011 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent dated 21.12.2010 and 14.02.2011, which are the tender notifications, are not valid as per the provisions of the Act. There is no Scheme called as Public auction-cum- deposit-cum-donation Scheme.

3. The impugned orders are challenged on various grounds including that the property of the temple which is situated within the precinct of the temple cannot be used for putting up of a commercial complex and the Scheme framed by the second respondent dated 21.12.2010, is of a non- existence one and it is in violation of law and contrary to Section 77 of the Act. As per the impugned tender notification, the lease is for three years and thereafter, it can be renewable once in three years under Section 34 of the Act. Any lease of the property exceeding five years is null and void unless sanction is accorded and such sanction can be accorded only after calling for objections from the public and considering the same, such sanction can be accorded only with the prior approval of the Government and according to the petitioner, the Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner and the Executive Officer have jointly decided to give perpetual lease of the property, which is in violation of law and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and thus, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned tender notifications.

4. When the matter was taken up for admission on 31.03.2011, this court has g