The legal principle established is the adherence to principles of natural justice and the limited duration of management takeover in matters related to the appointment of trustees and Fit Persons for religious and charitable endowments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in W.P. No. 11193 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge.)

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

1. The Appellant claims to be the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Mariamman and Vinayagar Temple (hereinafter referred to as ''the Temple'' for short) situated at Machampalayam Village, Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore District.

2. The Fifth Respondent, who is related to the Appellant, has a rival claim for the Hereditary Trusteeship of the Temple, is prosecuting the suit in O.S. No. 874 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Coimbatore in that regard. The Second Respondent by proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 1090/2023/Aa4/dated 24.03.2023 had called for the explanation of the Appellant for certain charges levelled against him in the conduct of the affairs of the Temple and pending enquiry into the same, he was placed under suspension, and the Fifth Respondent was appointed as Fit Person in the exercise of powers under Section 54(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short). The order was assailed by the Appellant in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 11193 of 2023 before this Court.

3. After hearing the parties, the Writ Court by order dated 22.06.2023 expressed the view that it was incumbent upon the Appellant to submit his explanation for the charges and an enquiry would have to be conducted into the same and refused to delve into the challenge made to quash the charges. However, the appointment of the Fifth Respondent as the Fit Person was set aside and the concerned authorities were required to appoint an Executive Officer for administering the Temple, subject to the final decision to be taken after completion of the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings taken against the Appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this intra-court Appeal invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.

4. Mr. V.Raghavachari, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenously contended that the Fifth Respondent, who has a rival claim for the Hereditary Trusteeship of the Temple, had been instigating the authorities under the Act to oust the Appellant from office and in that backdrop, the Second Respondent had issued the charge-memo and placed the Appellant under suspension and appointed the Fifth Respondent as Fit Person, which evidently smacks of malafides requiring interference by this Court. It is also sought to be canvassed that the same charges had been raised against the father of the Appellant, viz., Marudhachalam, while he was the Hereditary Trustee, which was closed after receiving his explanation and it was not permissible to call upon the Appellant to answer it once again at this distance of time. It is further pleaded that though the Appellant has been placed under suspension pending enquiry, in real effect, it stigmatizes him.

5. Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the First to Fourth Respondents, submits that the charges against the Appellant are grave in nature and no prejudice is caused to the Appellant, who has been called upon to submit his explanation in consonance with the principles of natural justice before taking final decision in the matter.

6. The consistent legal position has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Union of India -vs- Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28] that a charge-memo or show cause notice cannot be challenged before the completion of enquiry and the proceedings cannot be interdicted till it reaches its logical conclusion. It would be useful here to extract the relevant passages from the said decision which read as follows:-

“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board -vs- Ramdesh Kumar Singh [JT 1995 (8) SC 331],