BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, G.R. SWAMINATHAN, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
R.S. Kalyanasundaram & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. (MD)Nos. 11817 of 2018 & 6446 of 2022 & W.M.P. (MD)Nos. 5010 & 5011 of 2022
Decided On : 30-08-2022
Mandamus - Administration of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 23 - The court found that the directions issued in the writ petition were unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and dismissed the petition. The impugned circular issued by the Commissioner, HR&CE was also held to be invalid due to lack of notice to the affected parties. The court allowed another writ petition and granted liberty to the Commissioner, HR&CE to pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the introduction of a biometric device to mark and record the entry of the staff appointed by the department and to reform the temple administration. The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of demand and refusal, violation of principles of natural justice, and improper listing during the vacation period. The court set aside all the directions made in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the directions issued in the writ petition were unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and dismissed the petition. The impugned circular issued by the Commissioner, HR&CE was also held to be invalid due to lack of notice to the affected parties. The court allowed another writ petition and granted liberty to the Commissioner, HR&CE to pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.
Issues: The primary issues were the sustainability of the directions issued in the writ petition and the validity of the impugned circular issued by the Commissioner, HR&CE.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the directions issued in the writ petition were unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and dismissed the petition. The impugned circular issued by the Commissioner, HR&CE was also held to be invalid due to lack of notice to the affected parties. The court allowed another writ petition and granted liberty to the Commissioner, HR&CE to pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court set aside all the directions made in the writ petition and dismissed it. The impugned circular issued by the Commissioner, HR&CE was held to be invalid, and the court allowed another writ petition and granted liberty to the Commissioner, HR&CE to pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to introduce biometric device to mark and record the entry of the staffs appointed by the department alone and consequently order to reform the administration of the temple by forming a committee consisting the first respondent and the District Collector of Tuticorin District to streamline the administration of Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 30738/2018/Z3 dated 01.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal.)
Common Order:
G.R. Swaminathan, J.
1. The shore-town of Tiruchendur is one of the important pilgrim centres of India. Lord Subrahmanya, popularly known as Muruga, is its presiding deity. The temple is one of the six abodes of Lord Muruga. It has been celebrated in Sangam literature. Since it is a public temple, it has been brought under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Executive Officer of the temple is in the rank of a Joint Commissioner.
2. A set of persons known as Thirisuthanthirars have been associated with the temple from time immemorial. Tirunelveli District Gazetteer of the year 1911 refers to them in the following terms :
“The Mukkani Brahmans, of whom there are probably not less than a thousand in Tiruchendur, stand in a peculiar relationship to the Subramanya temple. When founding the place, the God Subramanya set up 2,000 families of this case to attend to the services of the temple, a duty which they have ever since faithfully performed. Their functions consist mainly in making offerings and performing religious ceremonies-kattalais such services are called on behalf of absentee worshipers. Distinguishable by their topknots of hair, which, very much like the malayalis, they train to fall above their foreheads, they may be seen journeying in almost any part of the country, either to collect subscriptions for the temple festivals or fees from their tardy patrons. There is no doubt that the business is remunerative; they are generally well to do and lead a comfortable existence.”
Cases were filed by individual Thirisuthanthirars for enforcing their claims before the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). On more than one occasion, matters were taken right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Registered societies have been formed to espouse their collective interest. One such body has filed O.S No.157 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchendur (earlier O.S No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin) for declaring that they are a denominational community and that they are entitled to perform the schedule mentioned religious services in the temple and that they should not be restrained from carrying them out. Written statement has been filed and the suit is still pending.
3. One Thiru.R.S.Kalyanasundaram, the petitioner in WP(MD)No.11817 of 2018 claiming to be a devotee and a regular visitor to this temple alleged that the Thirisuthanthirars (though he does not specifically name them) are illegally interfering with the rights of the worshipers. He sent a complaint dated 29.05.2018 through registered post to the Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai and the Executive Officer of the temple calling for streamlining the administration. On the very next day, he filed a writ petition for directing the respondents to introduce biometric device to mark and record the entry of the staff appointed by the department and to reform the temple administration.
4. The writ petition was listed for admission on 01.06.2018 before the Hon'ble Division Bench comprising the Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.V.Muralidaran and the Ho
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and provide notice to affected parties before issuing directions or circulars that may a....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
Point of Law : Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred merely because there is an alternative remedy of appeal.
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
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.