Exemption under Section 4 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 cannot be claimed as a matter of right and can be withdrawn by the Government on justifiable reasons.

1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, withdrawing the exemption granted under Section 4 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to the Temple established by the petitioner, is the core issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

Factual background :-

2. This writ petition is directed against the order in G.O.Ms.No.55 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, dated 19 March 2013, whereby and whereunder, the exemption granted to Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya Temple, Nanganallur, founded and run by Sri Maruthi Bhaktha Samajam Trust, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, vide Orders in G.O.Ms.No.346 dated 1 October 2012 and G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 18 March 1996, were cancelled.

3. The petitioner is a trust formed by Tvl. S. Ramani, M. Purushothaman and K.R.V. Srinivasa Rao, for the purpose of establishing a religious institution for propogating Hindu Religious tenets and culture. The deed of Trust dated 4 February 1985 was registered before the District Registrar, Chennai South. The trust resolved to construct a temple for Lord Anjaneya in Nanganallur. The petitioner purchased property in the name of the trust and thereafter constructed the temple. The idol was named as Sri Adhivyathikara Bhaktha Anjaneya.

4. The trust, after constructing the temple, submitted an application dated 28 August 1995 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”) to exempt the temple from the provisions of T.N. HR & CE Act, 1959. The Government was pleased to grant exemption to the temple founded by the trust from certain provisions of HR & CE Act and Rules made thereunder. Subsequently, the petitioner made a further request to grant exemption from certain other provisions of HR & CE Act. The Government once again passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 18 March 1996, granting exemption to the temple run by the trust, from few other provisions of the Act.

5. While the matters stood thus, the first respondent issued a notice dated 11 October 2012, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the exemption should not be withdrawn. The first respondent alleged certain irregularities in the matter of administration of temple. The first respondent alleged that the petitioner collected donations in the name of the temple and the entire income was appropriated by the trust. It was further alleged that the petitioner misused the exemption by diverting the funds.

6. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice wherein it was indicated that exemption was given to the temple run by the trust only and as such, there was nothing wrong in utilizing the funds of the temple by the trust.

7. The first respondent notwithstanding the explanation given by the petitioner, passed an order withdrawing the exemptions granted to the temple. The said order is under challenge in the writ petition at the instance of the trust.

Rival contentions :-

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the order of exemptions granted by the first respondent dated 1 November 1995 and 18 March 1997, contended that the Government was fully aware that the trust alone was conducting the affairs of the temple and as such, there was nothing wrong in utilizing the temple funds for purchasing property by the trust or for other lawful objects of the trust. According to the learned counsel, the trust was managing the affairs of the temple and receipts were issued in the name of the Trust to the devotees. The first respondent was well aware of the ownership of the temple and it was with the full knowledge, exemptions were given. Therefore, it was not correct to say that there was diversion of funds. It was further contended that there should be sufficient reasons to withdraw the order of exemption. According to the learned counsel