Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Sri Sabanayagar Temple & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary, Department of Tamil Development, Religious Endowments & Information Department & Others
W.P.No.18248 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.2 of 2006 and 1 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on : 02-02-2009
Writ Petition challenging the appointment of Executive Officer for Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram under Sec.45 (1) of HR & CE Act. Petitioners contended that the temple is a denominational temple and that there can be no interference with the administration of its property. Held, the temple is not a denominational temple and that the appointment of Executive Officer is not an interference with the religious affairs and does not violate Art.26 of Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram is a public Hindu Religious Institution, within the meaning of Sec.6 (18) read with Sec.6 (20) of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act. Chidambaram Temple is a famous Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva located in the heart of the temple town of Chidambaram. Chidambaram Temple dedicated to Lord Shiva (Siva) in His form of the Cosmic Dancer, Nataraja (eluhrh;) is a temple complex spread over 40 acres in the heart of the city. Lord Natarajar is the symbolic representation of the supreme bliss or aananda natanam. Saivaites believe that a visit to Chidambaram leads to liberation. In O.S.No.16/1933, claiming that the temple is an absolute private property of Podhu Dikshidars and outside the scope of HR & CE Act. Podhu Dikshidars have filed suit in O.S.No.16/1933. District Court, Cuddalore rejected Podhu Dikshidars claim that the temple is private property and passed the decree modifying the scheme settled by HR & CE Board in O.A.No.73/1932. Onbehalf of the Writ Petitioner, Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the direction of the Court in W.P.No.5638/1982 to issue fresh show cause notice was not kept in view. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the impleading Petitioner is necessary party as he is interested in fighting the worshipping right.
Finding of the Court:
The temple is not a denominational temple and that the appointment of Executive Officer is not an interference with the religious affairs and does not violate Art.26 of Constitution of India.
Issues: 1) Whether Chidambaram Sabanayagar temple is a denominational temple? 2) Whether Podhu Dikshidars are right in contending that the temple is the denominational temple and that there can be no interference with the administration of its property? 3) Whether Petitioner is right in contending that the alleged mismanagement was in as early as in 1980 and there has been no fresh material to show that the mismanagement continues? 4) When the original show cause notice was based on one set of alleged mismanagement, can Commissioner/Government change the basis of mismanagement? 5) Whether the impugned order is vitiated due to alleged paradigm shift in the enquiry as contended by the Petitioner. 6) Whether the appointment of Executive Officer is an interference with the religious affairs and whether the same is violative of Art.26 of Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1) The observations of the Division Bench in 1952 (1) MLJ 557 that Podhu Dikshidars are a denomination are to be tested in the light of well-settled principles laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court. 2) In view of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the observations of the Division Bench in 1952 (1) MLJ 557 (supra) may not have any binding effect. 3) The distinction between right of religious denomination to manage its affairs in matters of religion and to acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such property in accordance with law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in Sri Shirur Mutt case [1954 SCR 1005]. 4) The secular activities are subject to statutory control. When examined in the light of the well-settled principles, Podhu Dikshidars are not entitled to the protection in particular clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26 of Constitution as religious denomination in the matter of management, administration and governance of the temple under the Act. As such appointment of Executive Officer is not ultra vires the Article 25 and 26 of Constitution of India.
Final Decision: Writ Petition is dismissed.
Writ Petitioner – Secretary of Podhu Dikshidar challenges the final order passed by the Government dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.114 of HR & CE Act. The impugned order of the Government confirms the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE dated 31.7.1987 appointing Executive Officer for Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram under Sec.45 (1) of HR & CE Act.
2. Administration of Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram has been the subject matter of litigation for about a century. Dispute relating to administration of temple has had chequered career. For the understanding of contentious points raised, it is necessary to briefly refer to the earlier litigations and the background.
3. Scheme of Administration & O.S.No.16/1933
------------------------------------------------- }
(1939) II MLJ 11
(i) Arulmigu Sabanayagar Temple (Natarajar) at Chidambaram, Cuddalore District is a Public Hindu Religious Institution, within the meaning of Sec.6 (18) read with Sec.6 (20) of HR & CE Act and all the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the above said temple. The erstwhile Hindu Religious Endowment Board settled a "Scheme of Administration" in Boards Order No.997 dated 08.5.1933 under Tamil Nadu Act II of 1927.
(ii) Some of the Podhu Dikshidars have filed suit in O.S.No.16/1933 on the file of District Court, South Arcot to set aside the Boards Order on the ground that temple is an absolute private property of Podhu Dikshidars and out side the scope of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1927.
(iii) District Court, Cuddalore rejected the Dikshidars claim of the temple being private and passed a decree modifying the scheme settled by HR & CE Board in O.A.No.73/1932. On appeal filed by Dikshidars in A.S.No.306/1936, High Court confirmed the scheme with some modifications which has been reported in (1939) II MLJ 11.
(iv) G.O.Ms.No.894, Rural Welfare Dept. dated 28.8.1951
---------------------------------------------------------- }
G.O.Ms.No.1278, Revenue Dept. dated 21.5.1954
Though the temple had been declared as a public temple, provisions of the Act could not be enforced. Hence, in order to enforce the provisions of the Act, temple was notified under Chapter VI
(A) u/s.65 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.894, Rural Welfare Dept. dated 28.8.1951. The said Government Order was challenged in W.P.Nos.379 and 380/1951 by Dikshidars and the notification was quashed by the Judgment dated 13.12.1951. Challenging the Order in W.P. Nos. 379 and 380/1951, Government have filed C.A.No.39/1953 before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, by G.O.Ms.No.1278, Revenue Dept. dated 21.5.1954, State Government cancelled the above notification and the Civil Appeal was therefore withdrawn.
(v) W.P.No.5638/1982:-
Stating that Podhu Dikshidars have failed to carryout the lawful orders issued by the Department and the Management of the temple was unsatisfactory, notice in Rc.No.52754/1982/B6 dated 20.7.1982 was issued to the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars pointing out several irregularities in the administration of the temple and its properties and the proposal to appoint an Executive Officer. That order was challenged by the Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars in W.P.No.5638/1982 before the High Court, Madras. By the Judgment dated 09.8.1983, High Court directed that the aforesaid notice would be treated only as show cause notice and not as a decision and that it was open to the Dikshidars to putforth their objections that were available to them including the vires of Sec.45 of HR & CE Act.
(vi) Pursuant to the direction of the Court, Secretary of Podhu Dikshidars have filed reply on 09.01.1984. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner. Main contention of Dikshidars was that appointment of Executive Officer would be interfering with their rights guaranteed under Art. 26 of Constitution of India. Commissioner has passed an order on 31.7.1987 observing that appointment of Executive Officer is only to look after the administration of the
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
