The challenge in all these writ petitions is to an auction notification, issued by the respondent Temple, dated 28.04.2015, published in the Tamil Daily Thinamani on 03.05.2015.

2. Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Temple.

4. The admitted facts are that the petitioners were inducted as lessees of shops owned by the respondent Temple. The petitioners, pursuant to the lease granted in their favour, are in possession of the respective shops from 2004-05 onwards. The petitioners claim that they have been paying rents promptly without any default and once in every three years the respondent Temple revised the lease rent by enhancing the same by 15%, which has been accepted and paid by the petitioners and they are not in default. While so, notices were issued to the petitioners by the Competent Authority calling upon them to vacate and hand over the possession of the shops, failing which, they were informed that action would be initiated under Section 78 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'). While so, the impugned auction notification was issued by the respondent Temple proposing to bring for auction the leasehold right of the shops to be granted for a period commencing from the date of approval of grant of lease till 30.06.2018.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondent Temple in issuing impugned auction notification is arbitrary and illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioners are in lawful occupation of the respective shops and promptly paying the rent and while they are in possession of the shops bringing the same shops for public auction is illegal.

6. It is further submitted that the respondent has received the rent upto the current month and no steps have been taken for evicting the petitioners and no orders have been passed. In the event of eviction proceedings being initiated, it is open to the petitioners to appropriately defend the same and establish that they are entitled to continue in occupation of the shops on payment of reasonable rent as fixed by the respondent.It is submitted that without resorting to such procedure, issuing an auction notification for the shops in possession of the petitioners is arbitrary and unjust. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners solely depend upon the income, which they earn from the business carried on in the shops and if the auction proposed to be conducted pursuant to the impugned notification is held, the petitioners rights would bejeopardized.

7. Reliance was placed on G.O.No.456, dated 09.11.2007, wherein the Government has ordered that the lease rent could be increased only by 15% over and above the existing lease rent and not at the rate of 33.3%. Further, it is submitted that there is no certainty in the period of lease proposed to be granted pursuant to the impugned auction notification as the date of commencement of lease has not been mentioned and the date of expiry of the lease alone has been mentioned as 30.06.2018. Further, it is submitted that the impugned notification has been issued in violation of the statutory rules, namely, the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 and the mandatory 15 days clear notice has not been issued.

8. Further, it is submitted that the auction notification, dated 28.04.2015, was published only in the Tamil Daily “Thinamani”, which does not had wide circulation in the area and therefore the impugned notification is liable to be set aside. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in S.Vasudevan vs. The Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipality and another in W.P.(MD) No.2176 of