IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
N.C. Sridhar - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments Department, Chennai & Others – Respondent
W.P.No. 17570 of 2021 & W.M.P.No. 18682 of 2021
Decided on : 15-09-2021
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 46 (1) (1) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Issue of Writ of Certiorari – Quash - Petitioner states that he was duly elected as one of Trustees of Temple by Co-option - By order's of Hon'ble High Court rendered in CS a scheme decree has been framed - By rotation every five years Election will be conducted to choose trustees - Total numbers of trustees are five petitioner states that Sri Temple at being denomination temple only alone will be nominated to Post of Trustees and there is no dispute among members and other office bearers but some of the disputes aroused will be settled amicably by convening meeting - Held, In view of the interim arrangement made by this Court in C.M.A. keeping the present writ petitioner/Head Trustee alone under suspension would not serve any purpose – Contrarily allegations against all such trustees must be enquired into by affording opportunity to them and a decision is to be taken by following the procedures as contemplated under the Statute and Rules - It is needless to state that based on enquiry all actions including criminal actions are to be initiated against persons who all are accountable and liable - Respondents shall not take any lenient view in respect of dealing with such offences against Minor Deities and in such Court has to step-in and initiate appropriate action - Misplaced sympathy would lead to miseries and result in infringement of right of Minor Deity in temple - Offences against minors are far more serious than offences against persons - Petition Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.107 Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.08.2021 and the Letter No.15033/A.Ni.3-1/2016-1 dated 06.08.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and thereby render justice.)
1. The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.107 Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments Department, dated 06.08.2021 and the Letter No.15033/A.Ni.3-1/2016-1 dated 06.08.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent.
2. Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Government Advocate, made a submission that the Department is ready to argue the matter finally with the report filed and the learned counsel for the petitioner is also ready for final hearing. Thus, the parties argued the case for final hearing.
3. The petitioner states that he was duly elected as one of the Trustees of Sri Audikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam Temple by Co-option. By the order's of the Hon'ble High Court rendered in CS.No.593/1922, a scheme decree has been framed. By rotation, every five years, Election will be conducted to choose the trustees. The total numbers of trustees are five. The petitioner states that Sri Audikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam Temple at Mylapore, being denomination temple only Iyengars alone will be nominated to the Post of Trustees and there is no dispute among the members and other office bearers, but some of the disputes aroused will be settled amicably by convening meeting. The petitioner was nominated and Co-opted as trustee for a period of five years from 01.02.2017 to 10.02.2022.
4. The petitioner states that by the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department [hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Department”] issued in proceedings dated 26.09.2011, a notice was issued under Section 46 (1) (1) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”] and certain irregularities are pointed out and the petitioner was asked to appear before the competent authorities on 14.10.2011. On that occasion, five Trustees were elected by way of Co-option method.
5. The petitioner further states that himself, C.Rangachari, Tmt.I.B.Ananthakumari and Umudi Sudhakar and Nathaleela Narayana Gupta were the Trustees. The petitioner is the Head of the Trustees. The proceedings of the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department was challenged before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.24113 of 2011 and the said Show Cuase Notice issued was set aside by this Court. The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.142 of 2014 was filed, challenging the order passed in the writ petition and the said writ appeal is pending.
6. The petitioner states that he hold the Post of Trustee only to do service to the God and to the devotees and he took it as an opportunity for him to serve the society at large. To his surprise, the Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments Department, issued the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.107, Tourism, Culture, Religious Endowments Department dated 06.08.2021 and letter dated 06.08.2021, placing all the five Trustees under Suspension. The orders impugned are not in consonance with the provisions of the HR & CE Act and Rules. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on narration of facts, contended that the impugned order of Suspension is uncalled for and at the first instance, it is brought to the notice of this Court that five Trustees were placed under Suspension in G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 06.08.2021. However, the petitioner alone is continuing as Head of the Trustees and the other erstwhile
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State of Bombay
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh [(1979) 1 SCC 560 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 348 : AIR 1979 SC 381]
A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy [(2011) 9 SCC 286 : AIR 2011 SC 3298]
State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder [(2011) 8 SCC 737 : AIR 2011 SC 3470]
Seshammal [Seshammal v. State of T.N.
R.Murali and others Vs. Kanyaka P.Devasthanam and Charities and others
Assistant Commissioner HR & CE, Salem Vs. Nattamai K.S.Ellappa Mudaliar & 11 others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.