Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
P.R. Thirupathy & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment & Others - Respondents
W.P.No. 365 of 2014
Decided On: 19-03-2015
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 - Section 49(1) – Claim of compensation - Cost of renovation - Violation of principles of natural justice - Jurisdiction to appoint a fit person - Petitioners would state that said temple is an ancient temple constructed by a group of persons belonging to particular community to which they belong - It is stated that deity is worshipped by said community - It is further stated that temple is a denomination temple in character and temple was maintained by forefathers of petitioners and petitioners 1 to 4 are of temple - It is further stated that a person belonging to another community is said to have interfered with administration of temple maintained by ancestors of petitioners which necessitated their ancestor had filed a Suit before District Court and it is stated that a decree was passed by which petitioners claimed temple belongs to a particular community and managed by said community from generation - Petitioners would further state that during February temple was renovated and cost of renovation was met with contributions from people belonging to petitioners community and officials of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department also participated - Further it is submitted that third respondent Assistant Commissioner HR&CE Erode is supervising temple and petitioners have maintained accounts of temple as advised by third respondent – Held, It is to be further pointed out that impugned order was not communicated to petitioners and in counter affidavit filed by third respondent it has been stated that copy of order was also sent to person in management by post and it is not necessary to send same to Writ Petitioner stating that they are not trustees as claimed by them - Averment made in counter affidavit of third respondent is vague as it does not state date of dispatch whether it was sent by registered post or not and other details - Contentions of third respondent that copy of order was sent to person in management by post is held to be not substantiated - Third respondent takes a stand that petitioner need not be provided with copy it is not known under what circumstances signature of petitioner and others were obtained by fit person when was opened - Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent submitted that though term of office of trustee is over they are still continuing - In such circumstances petitioners ought to have been heard in matter after issuing notice to them since such procedure had not been followed it has to be necessarily held that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner would contend that temple is a denomination temple established and maintained by people belonging to a particular community third respondent has denied contention and submitted that H.R.,&C.E department has been appointing non-hereditary trustees belonging to other community to temple from time to time and trustees are appointed in accordance with stipulation under Section 47 of Act - In light of above stand taken by parties this issue cannot be adjudicated in this Writ Petition and it is for petitioners to work out their remedies under Act in manner known to law - In light of above reasoning it is held that impugned order is vitiated on ground of violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly same is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside and matter is remanded to third respondent for fresh consideration and third respondent shall issue show cause notice to petitioners and other trustees call for their objections hear parties in person and thereafter pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law - Above directions shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ Petition is allowed
1. The petitioners claim to be trustees of Arulmighu Kariaperumal Temple, Paruvachi Village, Chembulichampalayam Post, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, and the first petitioner is the hereditary trustee.
2. The petitioners would state that the said temple is an ancient temple constructed about 500 years ago by a group of persons belonging to particular community to which they belong. It is stated that the deity is worshipped by the said community as their Kuladeivam. It is further stated that the temple is a denomination temple in character and the temple was maintained by the forefathers of the petitioners and the petitioners 1 to 4 are the Dharmakarthas of the temple. It is further stated that a person belonging to another community is said to have interfered with the administration of the temple maintained by the ancestors of the petitioners, which necessitated their ancestor had filed a Suit in O.S.No.1185 of 1921, before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and it is stated that a decree was passed on 18.09.1923, by which the petitioners' claimed the temple belongs to a particular community and managed by the said community from generation. The petitioners would further state that during February 2013, the temple was renovated and the cost of renovation was met with the contributions from the people belonging to the petitioners' community and the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department also participated in the Kumbabishegam. Further, it is submitted that the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Erode, is supervising the temple from 1995 and the petitioners have maintained the accounts of the temple as advised by the third respondent. While so, the third respondent passed an order on 18.09.2013, appointing the fourth respondent as fit person of the temple in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners would further state that the said order was not communicated to the petitioners and the petitioners sought for information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and thereafter, only were informed about the said order. It is stated that the order has been passed in violation of provisions of the Act, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it is stated that the impugned order does not assign any reason for appointing the fit person, when the petitioners are properly managing the temple under the supervision of the third respondent. The said order dated 18.09.2013, which according to the petitioners was communicated to them only on 13.12.2013, is impugned in the Writ Petition.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners after referring to the factual details as stated above, submitted that the third respondent without issuing notice to the administrators of the temple, passed the impugned order and the order was neither communicated to the first petitioner, hereditary trustee or to any one of the other trustees. Further, it is submitted that the third respondent does not have jurisdiction to appoint a fit person, since the temple is a denomination temple, established, maintained and managed exclusively by a particular community people. Therefore, it is submitted that notice ought to have been issued to the persons, who are administering the temple. Further, it is submitted that there is a reference to a report of the Inspector, HR & CE, Bhavani, dated 24.06.2013, which has not been furnished to the petitioners and the impugned order does not assign any reason as to why a fit person has to be appointed. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
