Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2216
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
R. Jeyakumar & Another
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board & Others
W.P. (MD) Nos. 15572 & 15573 of 2012 & M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 & 1 of 2013
Decided On : 04-08-2014
M. Ajmal Khan, Sr. Counsel for J. Lawrance, V.R. Shanmuganathan, Spl. GP, S. Manohar, R.G. Shankar Ganesh, K. Gopinathan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to appoint Trustees or Fit Persons under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is limited to temples included in the list published under Section 46 of the Act.
Headnote:
Temple - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 49, Section 47 - The court held that the Joint Commissioner had no jurisdiction to appoint Trustees or Fit Persons under Section 49 or Section 47 of the Act as the temple in question was not included in the list published under Section 46. The impugned order was set aside, and the official respondents were directed to appoint Trustees in terms of the Scheme within three months, with the possibility of appointing a Fit Person if legally warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The Arulmighu Chinna Muthalamman Temple, governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, had a Scheme settled under Section 64(1) of the Act for the appointment of Trustees. The Joint Commissioner appointed an Executive Officer as Fit Person for the temple, which was challenged in the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Joint Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 49 or Section 47 of the Act, as the temple was not included in the list published under Section 46. The court also held that the petitioners were allowed to participate as Trustees, and the impugned order violated principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to appoint a Fit Person and the violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Joint Commissioner had no jurisdiction to appoint Trustees or Fit Persons under Section 49 or Section 47 of the Act as the temple in question was not included in the list published under Section 46. The impugned order was set aside, and the official respondents were directed to appoint Trustees in terms of the Scheme within three months, with the possibility of appointing a Fit Person if legally warranted.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the official respondents were directed to appoint Trustees in terms of the Scheme within three months, with the possibility of appointing a Fit Person if legally warranted.
1. Since in these two writ petitions, common issues are involved and since one and the same order is challenged, they were taken up together and disposed of by means of this common order.
2. The facts of the case would be as follows :
Arulmighu Chinna Muthalamman Temple situated at Ayyampalayam Village, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District, is a Hindu Temple governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai, by his Proceedings in O.A.No.37 of 1990, settled a Scheme under Section 64(1) of the Act. As per the said Scheme, the temple and its properties shall be administered by at least three persons, and not exceeding four persons, to be appointed as Trustees by the competent authority, from Rajam, Kailamaviliar, Vellalar, and Sattarm sects. The Trustees so appointed by the competent authority shall elect one among them as Chairman of Board of Trustees as per the provisions of the Act. The period of Trusteeship shall be three years from the date of election of the Chairman of Board of Trustees. Admittedly, the said temple has not been included in the list published under Section 46 of the said Act. The petitioners in both the writ petitions, and the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.15572 of 2012 claim that they have been recognized as Trustees of the temple by the Department and they have been managing the affairs of the temple and its properties.
3. While so, the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions, viz. Kuppusamy Raju, made an application to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai, on 18.06.2012 requesting the Joint Commissioner to appoint a fit person, since the petitioners herein were causing hindrance to the fourth respondent from administering the temple and its properties. Based on the same, the Joint Commissioner, by his Proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 5655/12/A1 dated 03.10.2012, appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kalakatheeswarar Temple, Dindigul, as Fit Person for the said temple, until the Trustees are appointed as per the terms of the Scheme. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same. Therefore, they are before this Court with these writ petitions.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions, and also the learned counsel for the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.15572 of 2012. I have also perused the records carefully.
5. In these writ petitions, among other grounds, two main grounds are focussed. The first one is that though the impugned order does not mention the provision under which it has been passed, in the counter, it is stated tacidly that the order has been passed by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 49 of the said Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that the power to appoint a Fit Person under Section 49 of the Act has been given only to the Assistant Commissioner and not the Joint Commissioner. Thus, according to the petitioners, the Joint Commissioner ought not to have exercised the power under Section 49 which is not conferred upon the Joint Commissioner. The next ground of attack is that the impugned order had been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and thus the impugned order has grossly violated the principles of natural justice.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3 would submit that of course it is true that in paragraph-12 of the counter, it has been mentioned that the impugned order came to be passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 49 of the Act, but the said statement is erroneous. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that as a matter of fact, the impugned order came to be passed in exercise of the powers conferred unde
