Temple in question a religious institution.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition in his capacity as the Founder Managing Trustee of Sri Mahalakshmi Temple, Madras-90, for the following relief :

To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the lst respondent relating to the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Executive officer of Sri Mahalakshmi Temple, Besant Nagar, Madras-90, issued in Re. No. 51321/92-L1 dated 16-7-1992, and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the founder Managing Trustee of Sri Mahalakshmi Temple. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. 51321/92-L1 dated 16-7-1992 appointing the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of the Sri Mahalakshmi Temple, Madras-90, for better administration of this temple. The order was passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 45(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The powers and duties of the Executive Officer and the non-hereditary trustee have already been set out in detail in the Annexure to the order impugned in the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, he is the founder of the temple and the City Civil Court, Madras, has given a finding in his favour, which clearly establishes his position in the temple ever since its inception. Even though the Courts have held that Sri Mahalakshmi Temple is a public religious institution coming under the provisions of the Act, that cannot be a reason for the appointment of an Executive Officer for the temple without notice and that the present appointment of an Executive Officer for the temple practically replace the petitioner from his position as founder-cum-managing trustee of the temple. In the circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner should get a notice before an order is passed under S. 45(1) of the Act. It is further stated that the dismissal of L.P.I.A. No. 115 of 1992 by a Division Bench of this Court has not given any special power to the 1st respondent to proceed with the appointment of an Executive Officer for the institution in question and hence, the impugned order of the 1st respondent is ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside.

3. The above writ petition was admitted by this Court on 22-7-1992. Along with the writ petition, W.M.P. No. 14296 of 1992 was filed to stay the operation of the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 16-7-1992 in appointing the 2nd respondent as the Executive Officer of the temple in question. S. Govindaswamy, J., was pleased to grant interim stay for two weeks on 22-7-1992. To vacate the same, the 2nd respondent has filed W.M.P. No. 14925 of 1992. The 2nd respondent has also filed a detailed counter in this case. Likewise, the 1st respondent has also filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

4. By consent of all parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing and I have heard Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Mr. P. M. Bhaskaran, learned Govt. Advocate for the 1st respondent.

5. Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, at the time of hearing has raised the following only contention. The 1st respondent has no authority to appoint an Executive Officer for the temple in question without any notice to the person in management. According to him, it has been admitted by all the authorities below and the City Civil Court and this Court, that the petitioner is the founder of the temple. Placing strong reliance on the Division Bench judgement of this Court, Mr. G. Subramaniam further contends, that an enquiry has to be held after giving notice to