Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2794
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
Sri Devi Ellamman Paripalana Sangam
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai & Another
W.P. No. 5087 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 & 2 of 2010
Decided On : 14-07-2010
For the Petitioner:R. Shanumugam Senior Counsel for R. Gopinath, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 -T. Chandrasekar, Special Government Pleader HR & CEB, R3 - Sriram for A.S. Kailasam & Association, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow principles of natural justice and afford the affected party an opportunity before passing orders that affect their rights.
Headnote:
Fit person - Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act - Section 49(1) - The judgment discusses the appointment of a fit person under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It highlights the violation of principles of natural justice in the appointment process and emphasizes the importance of affording the affected party an opportunity before passing such orders. The judgment also references a Division Bench judgment regarding the exercise of power under the Act and the need for due process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of a fit person under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The petitioner, a registered Sangam, had been administrating the affairs of a temple and had appointed and removed trustees. The impugned order appointing the fit person was challenged on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity before the order was passed. The court also held that the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the order and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appointment of a fit person under Section 49(1) of the Act, violation of principles of natural justice, and the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following due process of law and affording the affected party an opportunity before passing orders that affect their rights. It also held that the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the order.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court concluded that the petitioner had the right to administer the temple and should have been given notice before the impugned order was passed.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of appointment of a Fit person issued under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Sangam is registered Sangam under the Societies Registration Act in the year 2004 in the name of "Sri Devi Ellamman Paripalana Sangam". The said Sangam has been administrating the affairs of Sri Devi Ellamman Thirukoil, Vannanthurai, Adyar, Chennai exclusively by vannan community (Dhobit Community) with the aid of their community members also and the said temple is an ancient one and the construction was made 100 years ago. It is further case of the petitioner-Sangam that it is formed to regulate the administrative affairs of Sri Devi Ellamman Thirukoil.
3. The formation of the Sangam was duly intimated to the first respondent department along with the list of Office Bearers selected by the members of the petitioner-Sangam. In the year 2008, the third respondent was nominated as the Trustee of the temple by the petitioner-Sangam and he was holding the post till 27.09.2009. Subsequently, he was removed and one E.Ramachandran has been selected and he continues as a Trustee. The removal of third respondent from the office is on certain allegations for having acted against the interest and development of the Temple. As the third Respondent continued to interefere with the administration after removal, the petitioner-Sangam filed a suit O.S.No.13446 of 2009 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court and an order of interim injunction has also been obtained.
4. In the meanwhile the third respondent made a complainant to the first respondent and considering the said complainant the impugned order was passed appointing the second respondent as fit person to the petitioner-Temple. The said appointment order is under challenge before this Court.
5. Mr.R.Shanmugam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Sangam is administrating the affairs of the Temple by appointing Trustees. The third respondent was removed on certain allegations and a new person has been appointed. The removal of the third respondent was already intimated to the first respondent Department through a letter dated 05.12.2009. When the third respondent was removed by the petitioner-Sangam, the first respondent, based on the complaint of removed Trustee, without serving notice and conducting enquiry under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, passed the impugned order.
6. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned order is bad for violation of principles of natural justice. When a Trustee was appointed by the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, the Department ought to have given notice to the sangam before any action is being taken under the Act. He relied on a Judgment of a Division Bench this Court in N.Sivasubramanian Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu represented by its secretary and five others reported in 2007 (1) LW-72 In that case an Executive Officer was appointed to a Temple and that was made under Section 45 of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The said appointment was challenged before this Court. This Court considering the scope of Section 45 held that even though power is given to the authority under the said Section of the Act, the said power has to be exercised by following due process of law.
7. Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the authority has got power under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to appoint a fit person in respect of non listed Temple. He further submitted that on a complaint, an enquiry was conducted and based on that the impugned order was passed.
8. Mr.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the petitioner-Sangam has n
