The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of the rights of religious denominations under Section 107 of the Act and Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution, and the requirement to approach the civil Court for modification of the Scheme Decree under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.25803 of 2022.)

T. Raja, ACJ.

1. This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.25803 of 2022, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner on a challenge to the G.O.Ms.No.103, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 23.09.2020 reducing the term of office of the non-hereditary trustees from three years to two years.

2. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner argued that Arulmighu Sri Kalikambal Kamadeswarar Temple is one of the ancient temples in the State constructed even prior to 16th Century B.C., because the Great Maratha Warrior Chatrapathi Sivaji Maharaj visited this temple and offered his prayers to the Goddess on 03.10.1677 during his Dakshin Digvijaya campaigns in South Indian region. This temple is also identified with Viswakarma community people and absolutely dedicated to the said family only. Moreover, Arulmighu Kalikambal Kamadeswarar Temple is a denominational temple declared under the Scheme Suit, C.S.No.654 of 1926 dated 08.08.1927 and the Scheme framed in the said suit was re-framed by formulating a fresh scheme in its place, vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.1935 passed in C.S.No.62 of 1933 by the High Court of Madras. As per the said Scheme Decree dated 25.09.1935, the management and administration of the temple exclusively vest with the Hindu Vishwakarma community people alone. The Scheme Decree clearly mentions the manner and administration of the day to day activities of the temple. It also deals with the mode of conduct of election, qualification of members who wish to contest elections, besides the tenure of office etc. When Clause-5 of the Scheme Decree spells out the tenure of office of trustees for three years, the said period of three years cannot be reduced to two years by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 23.09.2020, as the temple is a denominational temple declared under the Scheme Decree dated 25.09.1935 in C.S.No.62 of 1933 and that the management and administration of the temple exclusively vest with the Hindu Vishwakarma community people. Therefore, in view of Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short, “the Act”), Section 47 of the Act cannot be pressed into service, in the absence of any complaint either under Section 106 of the Act or Article 25(2) of the Constitution of India, as it is a denominational temple protected by Article 26 of the Constitution of India, for the simple reason that the scheme in respect of a denominational temple can be modified only by resorting to civil remedy to modify or re-frame the scheme settled by the competent civil Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case on hand, when the scheme was settled by this Court in C.S.No.62 of 1933 on 25.09.1935, as per the Scheme Decree, when the tenure of trustees is three years and not two years, the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in R.Murali and others v. Kanyaka P.Devasthanam and Charities and others, (2005) 6 SCC 166 would squarely apply to the present case. The judgment says, he pleaded, that the institution of religious denomination of Arya Vysya community is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India from interference in its administration by the authorities under the Act, because the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India has been expressly protected under Section 107 of the Act by making inapplicable the other provisions of the Act including Section 64 to institutions of religious and charitable nature of religious denominations. Arguing further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned Government Order passed without following the procedure contemplated under Section 64(5) of the Act is li