The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice under Section 53 of the Act is determined by the categorization of the temple's income and the delegated powers of the Commissioner, and any notice issued must align with the specific provisions of the Act.

1. Sri Audikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam, Mylapore, Chennai, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned show cause notice, issued vide Na.Ka.No.8946/2011/BC dated 26.09.2011, being illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner Temple is a Temple of Thengalai Persuation and comparatively an old Temple. The Temple is governed as per the scheme framed by this Court in C.S.No.593 of 1922 dated 20.11.1925, which was modified by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.189 of 1926, which was again modified in O.P.No.197 of 1950 dated 19.01.1951 and confirmed in O.S.A.No.43 of 1952 dated 26.08.1954.

3. The writ petition has been filed by the present Trustees of the Temple. Thiru N.C. Sridhar is the Chairman of the Trust Board.

4. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that Officials of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department tried to exercise their powers to fill up vacancies of the Board of Trustees. The action of H.R.&C.E. department was set aside by the Court, on the ground that it was not in the interest of the Temple. The decision passed by Civil Court has attained finality in O.S.A.No.43 of 1952 dated 26.08.1954.

5. The department of H.R.&C.E. again issue a notice on 29.01.1969 for inviting application for appointment of Trustees to the Temple. The said notice was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.706 of 1969 dated 16.04.1970. W.A.No.356 of 1971 filed by H.R.&C.E. against decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge, was also dismissed.

6. The Joint Commissioner, after inspecting the Temple, issued the impugned show cause notice, which is challenged on the following grounds:

a) For instituting disciplinary proceedings under Section 53(1) of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and

b) For the purpose of appointment of Executive Officer to the Temple.

6. I submit that for proper appreciation of the case, I pray that this Honourable Court to consider Section 53 of the Act XXII of 1959

7. I submit that the impugned show cause notice is challenged for the following amongst other grounds:

a) The second respondent has no jurisdiction, whatsoever to issue the impugned notice

b) The impugned notice was issued with malafide intention and motivated, which is void, ultra vires, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

c) As per the impugned notice income of the temple for Fasli 1417 is mentioned as Rs.40,81,151/- thus as per the provisions of the section 46 and 47 of the Act, it is only the Government possesses the power to deal with the affairs. But however since this institution is governed by a scheme framed by the High Court, and such provision incorporated to scheme having not been amended or modified, the authorities in the Act have no power or jurisdiction as legally pointed out the judgment cited in this case. d) Section 45(1) of the Act confers a Plenary power to the commissioner HR&CE to appoint EO and such power having not been delegated to any authority, the Joint Commissioner cannot issue a show cause notice under Section 45 of the Act to the trust Board, wherein the powers are confined by the provisions of the scheme. In this case, Trust Board is being constituted as per the provisions of the scheme and without modifying the provisions, the department cannot exercise that power automatically.

e) Section 26(1) of the Act contemplates the disqualification of Trustees. In the instant case the Show cause notice, certain irregularities against the Trust Board are pointed out by the second respondent who is not the competent authority to issue the show cause notice against the petitioners as they are not appointed under Section 47 of the Act XXII of 1959.

f) Only option available to the Department is to get the scheme modified or amended under Section 64(5) of the Act and not by issuing a show cause notice as has been done by the second respondent which is nothing but malafi