Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 855
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN
G. Srinivasan
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department, Coimbatore & Another
W.P. No. 10294 of 1996
Decided On :Decided On : 21-08-1996
For the Petitioner:W.C. Thiruvengadam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Subramaniam, Special Government Pleader, (H.R. & C.E.).
An Inspector can be appointed as a 'fit person' to administer a religious institution under Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 1996, where the term of the trustees has expired and there is no hereditary trustee.
Headnote:
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 - SCHEME FRAMED UNDER SECTION 64(1) - APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR AS FIT PERSON TO ADMINISTER TEMPLE - VALIDITY - TAMIL NADU ORDINANCE 3 OF 1996, SECTION 2(2) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trustee of a temple governed by a scheme framed under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner appointing an Inspector to take over the administration of the temple after the term of the trustees had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was valid and that the Inspector could be appointed as a 'fit person' to administer the temple under Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 1996, which came into force after the term of the trustees had expired.
Issues: 1. Whether the Inspector could be appointed as a 'fit person' to administer the temple under Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 1996. 2. Whether the impugned order was vitiated by the absence of a reference to the Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 1996 empowered the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an officer not below the rank of Inspector to administer a religious institution where the term of the trustees had expired and there was no hereditary trustee. 2. The mere fact that the impugned order did not refer to the Ordinance did not vitiate the order as long as the authority under which it was passed was traceable to the provisions of the Ordinance.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order staying the impugned order was vacated. The respondents were directed to appoint non-hereditary trustees within three months.
K.A. SWAMI, C.J.
1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 5.7.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn) Department, Coimbatore, in Na.Ka. No. 7221/96/A3, appointing the Inspector, H.R & C.E. Admn. Department, Sathyamangalam to take over the affairs of the temple, known as “Sri Kannikaparameswari Temple”
2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:— The temple in question is governed by the Scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Coimbatore on 10.4.1978 in O.A. No. 89/77-BI, under Sec. 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The provisions of the Scheme are as follows:—
“1. This scheme shall come into force from the date of publication in the District Gazette of Coimhatore.
2. The temple of Sri Kannikaparameswan. Sathyamangalam Town, Coimbatore District and all the properties movable and immoveables which belong to or have been or hereafter be given dedicated or endowed thereto and acquired for the temple in general or any one or more of the deities in particular do and shall vest in the respective deities.
3. The temple of Sri Kannikaparameswan. Sathyamangnlam Town, Coimbatore District shall be administered by 5 non-hereditary trustees to be appointed as per clause 4 of the Scheme by the appropriate authority under the H.R. & C.E. Act.
4. 5 persons shall be appointed as trustees by the appropriate authority from the Arya Vysya Community residing in Sathyamangalam Town, Coimbatore District, provided they do not suffer from any disqualifications mentioned in the HR & CE Act.
5. Pending the appointment of trustees under clause 4, Thiru S.M. Ramanathan is appointed as Fit Person.
6. Save in so far as expressly provided for herein the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder, as may be amended from time to time, shall apply to the management and administration of the temple.”
3. According to the recitals contained in the impugned order, the period of five non-hereditary trustees was over on 19.4.1996. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the period was over only on 18.8.1996. Whatever it may be as the matter stands to-day, the period of the aforesaid five persons, named in the impugned order, as trustees has been over. The impugned order only directs the Inspector of H.R. & C.E. Department, to take over the administration of the temple. Once the period is over, the trustees will not have any right to continue to manage and administer the temple. It has to be administered by the H.R. & C.E. Department, according to the provisions of the Act.
4. In the meanwhile, the Governor of Tamil Nadu has issued Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 3 of 1996, which has come into force on 26th June, 1996. Sub-sec (2) of Sec. 2 of the Ordinance reads thus:—
“(2) On and from the date of commencement of this Ordinance, the functions of the Board of trustees or of the trustee, as the case may be, of any religious institution shall, until the vacancy is filled up in accordance With the provisions of the 1959 Act, be performed——
(a) by the hereditary trustee or trustees of such institution, and
If there is no hereditary trustee of such institution, by the executive officer or if the Government so direct, by a fit person, who shall be an officer of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, not below the rank of Inspector, appointed by the Commissioner or by any officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf”
Thus, as per the Scheme extracted above, the institution in question is not having any hereditary trustee. All the five trustees are non-hereditary trustees. Their term was over on 19.4.1996. Therefore, as per sub-sec (2) of Sec. 2 of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 1996, it is op
