The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent herein relating to his order in his proceedings dated 18.12.2012 made in A.P.No.71 of 2011/D2, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to recognize the petitioner as co-trustee in the office of the hereditary trusteeship of A/m.Malaiyamman Temple, Thottakurichi Village, Karur Taluk and District.)

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in A.P.No.71 of 2011/D2 dated 18.12.2012 and to appoint him as a Co-Trustee in the office of the hereditary trusteeship of A/m.Malaiyamman Temple, Thottakurichi Village, Karur Taluk and District.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above case are as under:

(a) One T.M.Nallasamy Gounder, the father of the writ petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent filed a petition in OA No.25 of 1964 before the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE, Tanjore, under Section 63 (b) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), for a declaration that he is the Hereditary Trustee of the Arul Mighu Malaiyamman Mariyammal Temple at Thottakurichi Village, Karur Taluk and Karur District. The said application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tanjore in his order dated 30.09.1965.

(b) As against the said order, he filed an appeal in A.P.No.9 of 1966 before the Commissioner, HR&CE (A) Department, Madras and the said appeal was allowed on 11.07.1966 by the Commissioner, HR&CE, Madras and the said T.M.Nallasamy Gounder, the father of the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein, was managing the temple as Hereditary Trustee.

(c) According to the petitioner, after his father''s death on 20.09.2005, the post became vacant and hence, he made requests to the official respondents to recognise him as Co-Trustee along with the 3rd respondent and also alleged malpractice in the management of the temple.

3. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and typed set of papers have been filed relating to the proceedings before the official respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. From the orders passed by the official respondents, it is seen that the petitioner''s father T.M.Nallasamy Gounder was declared to hold the office of the trusteeship of the above said temple as Hereditary Trustee by the Commissioner in order dated 11.07.1966 in AP No.9 of 1996, which is passed under Section 69(1) of the Act. The case has emerged in view of the application filed by the father of the petitioner in OA No.25 of 1964, which was rejected on 30.09.1965 under Section 63(b) of the Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the said T.M.Nallasamy has preferred the above stated AP, whereby he was appointed. When he was in his advanced age, he filed an application before the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE seeking permission to appoint his eldest son, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the next in the line of succession as the Hereditary Trustree and the other legal heirs and also the wife of the said T.M.Nallasamy have filed no objection, for appointing him. Accordingly, it appears that the Joint Commissioner has passed an order in Rc No.6948/2001 dated 26.06.2002 under Section 54(1) of the Act, recording the name of T.M.Sivadevan, the 3rd respondent herein, as the next in line of succession to hold office. On 20.09.2005, the said T.M.Nalluswamy died.

6. From the records, I find that six years after the death of his father, the present petitioner T.N.Sivasubramanian has filed AP 71/2011/D2 before the Commissioner, HR&CE, to appoint him as a co-trustee under Section 54(1) of the Act.

7. After going through the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner and Commissioner, HR&CE, I find that both the official respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that