The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 53 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in the context of trustees' suspension and the conduct of elections for the post of Managing Trustee.

1. These nine writ petitions arose out of the various orders passed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, in respect of Arulmighu Kadumbadi Chinnamman Temple, Saidapet West, Chennai 600 015. In some orders, the respective petitioners were suspended after conducting enquiry from being Trustees of the Temple. In some cases, challenge is to the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, directing the Fit person to conduct the affairs of the temple, in association with the Managing Trustees of the temple at the relevant time. In some cases, challenge is to the order of the Commissioner, in writing letters to the Bank to operate the Bank account jointly along with the Fit person.

2. The following tabular column will show the list of cases along with the petitioners and the relief claimed and interim orders passed:

3. It is seen from the records that Arulmighu Kadumbadi Chinnamman Temple is a listed Temple, published under Section 46(ii) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (shortly "the HR&CE Act"). The Temple falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai. The office of the trusteeship of the temple was declared as a Hereditary Trusteeship, by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, in O.A.No.254/1947 vide order dated 12.12.1947. The family members are the Hereditary Trustees and there was no dispute amongst them till the year 2005.

4. During the year 2005, the Trustees passed a resolution at a special meeting held on 27.06.2005 that one A.Baskaran, petitioner in W.P.No.10746 of 2012 was elected as Managing Trustee for a period of two years from 01.07.2005. Under the amendment made to Section 48 of the HR&CE Act, the term of the office of the trusteeship was enhanced from two years to three years. But the said extension of tenure was not applicable to the Temple, which is manned by the Hereditary Trustees. The said A.Baskaran misconstrued the provision and took advantage of the amendment and requested the Department to extend his term of Managing Trusteeship for one year.

5. Mr.A.Baskaran, petitioner in W.P.No.10746 of 2012 filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, being R.P.No.55/2007 and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 05.10.2007. As against the said order, he filed writ petition in W.P.No.34119 of 2007 before this Court. He also filed a revision petition before the Government under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act. This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to the Government, to pass final orders, on the revision petition. After detailed enquiry, the revision petition filed under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act was disposed of by the State Government with a direction to the Hereditary Trustee to file objection if any, before the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, with regard to the election conducted on 17.10.2007 and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the same, after considering all objections and records. A petition was also filed under Section 23 of the HR & CE Act and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 31.05.2008.

6. As against the said order, A.Baskaran and 7 others, including A.Kasthuri, petitioner in W.P.No.12939 of 2010, A.Selvakumar, petitioner in W.P.No.14930 of 2010 filed a revision petition under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act to the Government with a prayer to conduct fresh election for the post of Managing Trustee. That revision petition was also dismissed by the Government on 17.02.2010.

7. Since there was no co-ordination between the Hereditary Trustees of the Temple and there was infighting among the Trustees to become the Managing Trustees and also there were unnecessary litigation and also the fact that the charge was not handed over to the Managing Trust