Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4120
2011 (5) CTC 728
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
FORCE 1 Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Managing Director Capt. Shibu Issac
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, rep by the Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department & Others
W.P.No.20024 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 29-09-2011
For the Petitioner:P.S. Raman, SC for Sanjay Ramaswami, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Kandasamy, Spl. G.P.(HR&CE).
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the constitutionally authorized right of a Hindu temple to appoint only Hindus for security services, as per Article 16(5) of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
Headnote:
Religion - Outsourcing of Security Services - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Section 10 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the disqualification of a company owned by Christians from bidding for a security contract for a Hindu temple, based on the condition that the tenderer body and the staff deployed must belong to the Hindu religion. The court held that the condition was valid and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it was constitutionally authorized under Article 16(5) and Section 10 of the Act. The court emphasized the secular nature of security services and the temple's right to appoint only Hindus as per the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company owned by Christians, challenged the disqualification from bidding for a security contract for a Hindu temple, based on the condition that the tenderer body and the staff deployed must belong to the Hindu religion. The petitioner argued that the condition was illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the condition was valid and not violative of the Constitution, as it was constitutionally authorized under Article 16(5) and Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The court emphasized the secular nature of security services and the temple's right to appoint only Hindus as per the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and constitutionality of the condition disqualifying a company owned by Christians from bidding for a security contract for a Hindu temple, based on the requirement that the tenderer body and the staff deployed must belong to the Hindu religion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 16(5) of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which authorized the temple to appoint only Hindus for security services. The court emphasized the secular nature of security services and the temple's right to enforce the condition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the condition disqualifying the petitioner company from bidding for the security contract was valid and not violative of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the temple had the right to appoint only Hindus for security services as per the Act.
1. This matter came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 27.09.2011.
2. The matter relates to outsourcing of security services of Arulmigu Subramaniya SwamyThirukoil at Tiruchendur.
3. Tiruchendur, “beautiful city” was until 1860 the headquarters of the old Panchamahal taluk. In 1911 was again restored to the equivalent of its old position as the capital of the newly-formed taluk of Tiruchendur. On the sea front stands the famous temple dedicated to the divine founder of the place. The building is somewhat curiously arranged, the Utsavar, named Shanmugar, that is, the god whose idol is taken in procession, having a shrine with its full complement of mantapams separate from the shrine of the god Subramanya himself and facing an opposite direction. Within the last few years a handsome mantapam, carved in the traditional style, has been erected in front of the Shanmugar shrine. The original portion of the temple, containing the shrine of Subramanyaswami and his two Ammans, is cut out of the sand-stone rock; the cliff has been left as far as possible to form the circuit walls, pillars and reinforcements of stone being added to support the stone superstructure. At one point in the outer circuit, a shrine dedicated to Vishnu has been hollowed out of the rock itself. Wisely taking advantage of the cliff, the builders placed the great gopuram apart from the temple and have thus provided a striking mark for mils around both by land and sea. [See : Government Tirunelveli Gazetteer (1916), compiled by H.R.Pate, I.C.S, Republished by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University – (1993)].
4. The petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director Captain Shibu Issac (Christian by faith). He has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge a condition found in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the third respondent, i.e., Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil represented by its Joint Commissioner-cum-Administrative officer, Tiruchendur, dated 29.7.2011 insofar as the tender condition disqualifying the petitioner company from giving their tender bid.
5. When the writ petition came up on 26.08.2011, notice was taken by the learned Special Government Pleader (HR&CE). Subsequently, on 5.9.2011, this court had directed the department to file a counter affidavit and an interim stay was granted from finalizing the tender for a period of one week. Subsequently when the matter came up on 12.9.2011, the learned Judge who initially heard the matter disqualified himself from hearing the case, but however he had extended the interim stay. Thereafter, when the case came up on 20.9.2011 before another learned Judge, she also expressed her inability to hear the case and directed the case to be posted before some other Court. However the interim stay was extended by one more week from 20.9.2011. It was after that order, the matter was directed to be posted before this court.
6. On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit was filed on 9.9.2011. Heard the arguments of Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.Sanjay Ramaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents including the third respondent.
7. The case of the petitioner was that the third respondent temple on 31.7.2009 had issued a tender notification calling for security contract to the temple for supplying of security guards numbering about 60 persons. The tender was for a period of one year. In that tender condition No.14, it was stated that the company which is bidding for the security contract must run by persons belonging to Hindu Religion and persons supplied by them (i.e., security guards), also must belonged to the Hindu religion. It is the case of the petitioner that they had bid for the contract and were awarded the contract from 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010 for a period of one year. Subsequently, the contract was
