Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, R.THARANI, JJ.
P.M. Pandiarajan – Petitioners
Vs.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department & Ors. – Respondents
W.A (MD)No.1434 of 2017, C.M.P(MD) No.10951 of 2017
Decided On : 21-12-2017
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Sections 64, 54 – Initiation of suo motu – Hereditary Trustees – It is the plea of the Appellants that the reason for initiation of suo motu proceedings is stated to be that the Administration of the Temple was vested with the Family of one Valliammal – Initially, there were two Hereditary Trustees and now, presently there are ten Hereditary Trustees in the Administration and if the situation continues, there may be litigations and therefore, in order to control and regulate the number of Hereditary Trustees, the impugned notice, was issued by the Second Respondent – Appellants have preferred the present Writ Appeal as Aggrieved Persons, as against the order in W.P (MD) passed by the Learned Single Judge – Held, On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court taking note of the relevant surrounding facts and attendant circumstances of the instance case in a wholesome manner comes to a conclusion that the impugned notice of the Second Respondent is only in the form of notice for which, the Appellants/Petitioners can submit their Objections/Representations/Remarks before the Second Respondent vindicating their stand point of view to substantiate their version with necessary supporting materials (inclusive of oral and documentary evidence as the case may be) and the reasons for the initiation of suo motu proceedings mentioned in the impugned notice, cannot prima facie be considered to be a case of one issued with pre- determination or pre-conceived notion, in the considered opinion of this Court. – As such, this Court in the interest of justice, fair play, equity, good conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Appellants to submit their Objections/Remarks/Representations before the Second Respondent (since there is no impediment in Law in this regard), within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. – Soon after the receipt of a copy of the Representations/Objections/Remarks/Filing of Response by the Appellants, the Second Respondent shall look into the same with all seriousness and earnestness and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned speaking order by assigning necessary qualitative and quantitative details, of course, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Appellants by adhering to the principles of natural justice. – It is open to the Appellants to raise all factual and legal pleas before the Second Respondent, who shall advert to the same by point to point and answer the same in a complete and comprehensive manner (which will have an appearance of justice) to give a quietus to the subject matter in issue. – It cannot be gainsaid that the Second Respondent shall pass necessary orders in the subject matter in issue in a Fair, Just, Free, Impartial, unbiased and in a dispassionate manner and in any event, uninfluenced and untrammelled with any of the observations made by this Court in this Writ Appeal. Writ Appeal Disposed of
The Appellants have preferred the present Writ Appeal as 'Aggrieved Persons', as against the order dated 10.10.2017 in W.P (MD) No. 24632 of 2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
INTRODUCTION:
2. Earlier, the Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order on 10.10.2017 in W.P (MD)No. 24632 of 2016 filed by the Appellants (as Petitioners), at Paragraph Nos.3 and 4, had observed the following and disposed of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioners(Appellants) to file necessary Objections/Suggestions to the Second Respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order etc:
“3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R-1 & R-2 would submit that the impugned proceeding is nothing, but a notice, for which, the petitioners have to offer their objections/suggestions only and without doing so, they have straightaway approached this Court.
4. There is every force in the contention raised by the respondents. A cursory look at the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2016 would go to show that the 2nd respondent has only invited objections/suggestions from the petitioners to frame a scheme under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959, which in the considered opinion of this Court, need not be challenged.”
APPELLANTS' CONTENTINS:
3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that Appellants/Petitioners are Hereditary Trustees-cum-Poojaries in the Temple and the impugned notice dated 07.10.2016 issued by the Second Respondent/Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Madurai, is a suo motu proceedings initiated for framing a Scheme as per Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959).
4. It is the plea of the Appellants that the reason for initiation of suo motu proceedings is stated to be that the 'Administration of the Temple' was vested with the Family of one Valliammal. Initially, there were two Hereditary Trustees and now, presently there are ten Hereditary Trustees in the Administration and if the situation continues, there may be litigations and therefore, in order to control and regulate the number of Hereditary Trustees, the impugned notice, dated 07.10.2016 was issued by the Second Respondent.
5. Advancing her arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants takes a stand that the impugned notice dated 07.10.2016 of the Second Respondent is beyond and contradictory to the ingredients of Section 64 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and that apart, the impugned notice dated 07.10.2016 of the Second Respondent is against the order of the Board, dated 05.09.1935.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the impugned notice dated 07.10.2016 of the Second Respondent is premature in view of the final order in W.A(MD)Nos.1133 & 1143 of 2016, C.M.A(MD)Nos.583, 669, 670 & 819 of 2016 & W.P(MD)Nos.5262, 5340, 10563, 11679, 13436 & 13493 of 2016.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants expatiating her submissions, submits that in the instant case on hand, there is no Application for 'Settlement of Scheme' and the contents of the impugned notice dated 07.10.2016 indicates that it is not initiated due to any prevailing 'mal- administration'. Per contra, according to the Appellants, the impugned notice dated 07.10.2016 of the Second Respondent anticipates litigations in future and as such, seeks to reduce the number of Hereditary Trustees.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants projects and argument that 'reduction of Hereditary Trustees', is not one in the interest of proper administration of the Temple. Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Appellants that the Second Respondent has taken a hypothetical view that the 'Future Hereditary Trustees' will be litigious.
9. Continuing further, it is the version of the Appellants that Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowm
SupremeToday
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
