Authorities removing hereditary trustee from office due to old age.

These three writ petitions show the sorry state of affairs in the management of a religious institutions- The trustees of the institution, though expected to conduct themselves in a manner which would command respect from the lay public and the worshippers of the deity, have been quarrelling among themselves in a manner which can only bring disrepute to themselves and to the institution.

2. Sankaralingam Poosari, petitioner in W.P.Nos.678, 732 and one of five petitioners in W.P.No.1700 of 1997 who is one of the nine hereditary trustees of Arulmighu Mariamman Temple at Irakkunagudi Sattur Taluk, Kamarajar District who constituted and Board of Trustees of the Temple, is now past 80 years of age, although he is apparently unwilling to admit that fact, and has chosen to state in the affidavit and other, documents that he is ‘over 70’ years of age.

He, on his own, gave a petition to the Assistant Commissioner on 8.11.1996 stating that his ill-health and physical infirmity which included nervous disability rendered it necessary for him to have assistance for casting his vote at the election to the office of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees Scheduled to be held on 13.1.1997. This prompted his eldest son, who, in accordance with Sec.54 of the H.R. & C.E. Act would be entitled to succeed as a trustee to seek the removal of his father from the office of the trustee. There is some dispute as to whether the father sought an enquiry thereafter. Files produced by the Government contain a type written letter which shows the signature of the letter as ‘S. Sankaralingam Poosari’ -the name being written in Tamil. Counsel for the petitioner repudiates that signature is that of his client. The files also contain the proceedings of what is alleged to be minutes of the rival meeting of petitioners and four other trustees opposed the re-election of Sagiah Poosari as Chairman, and which bears the thumb impression of the petitioner, next to which his name is written in Tamil. The writting there is identical to the writing found on the petition alleged by respondents to have been given by the petitioner seeking an enquiry after his eldest son has filed an application, seeking his father's place, on the Board of Trustees.

3. The manner in which the officers acted thereafter raises doubts regarding their impartiality. A Subordinate Officer functioning at a place which is said to be 150 Kms. away from the office of the superior officer is stated to have issued a consequential order on the same day, 27th December, 1996 on which day the Superior officer had issued the order to his subordinate. The date is said to be a mistake. However no other date has been shown to be the correct date.

4. According to the respondents, an enquiry was held by the Assistant Commissioner by visiting the residence of the petitioner. Not finding the petitioner in his house, formal notice for an enquiry is stated to have been served on the younger son. In the affidavit filed by the younger son, it is averred that no such notice was served. The respondents have taken the further stand that they sent a notice by courier. That fact is also disputed. According to the petitioner a letter was found thrown into the house only on the 4th of January, 1997 long after the date fixed for the enquiry was over.

5. It is evident that neither the Joint Commissioner nor the Assistant Commissioner had seen the petitioner face to face at any point of time and they had not held any enquiry in his presence on any date prior to 6th January, 1997 when ah order was made by the Joint Commissioner purporting to act under Sec.26(4) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, removing the petitioner from the office of hereditary trustee.

6. On the 8th January, 1997 the petitioner filed a civil suit O.S.No.4 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Sattur seeking an order of injunction to restrain the officers of the H.R. & C.E. Department as aflo the said Sangiah Poosari from preventing the petitioner casting his vote at t