2023 Supreme(Mad) 1898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Director Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi & Others – Respondents
Review Application (Writ) Nos. 169 & 170 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Headnote:

Review applications filed by the State Government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE) to review the common order passed in suo motu WP No. 574 of 2015 and WP(MD) No. 24178 of 2018, in and by which, this Court had issued as many as 75 directions to the review applicants, for the purpose of safeguarding the cultural and heritage value as well the archaeological importance of the historical monuments, sites, temples and its properties. Court held that the directions issued by this court earlier, is a step towards protection of not only the places of archaeological importance, but also the culture, tradition, properties and the activities associated with such sites including temples.

Fact of the Case:

The genesis of the main case viz, suo motu Public Interest Litigation as recorded by us in the original order dated 07.06.2021, certain directions of which are sought to be clarified in these review applications, and the relevant passage of the same reads as follows: 2.1 .....a suo motu proceedings, based on the newspaper report published in “The Hindu” on Sunday, 4th January, 2015 titled “Silent Burial”, relating to the inaction on the part of the Government in establishing the statutory authority, framing Rules and constituting a 17-member Heritage Commission to advise them on heritage issues. It was pointed out that in April 2012, the Government announced its decision to enact a law on Heritage Commission, which move was welcomed by activists and conservationists and the State Legislature passed a bill in this regard and it had received the assent of the Governor, however, there was no progress ever since. The newspaper report further indicated about another initiative of the Government viz., the Mamallapuram World Heritage Area Management Authority, meant for conservation of cultural heritage of area declared as a World Heritage Site in 1984, which has also not been set up.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the directions issued by this court earlier, is a step towards protection of not only the places of archaeological importance, but also the culture, tradition, properties and the activities associated with such sites including temples.

Issues: 1. Whether the court has the power to issue mandamus to the Government to bring a statute or a statutory provision in force? 2. Whether the court can amend the rules, if necessary, while dealing with a public interest litigation? 3. Whether the temples are covered under the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012? 4. Whether the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, is wide enough to cover temples? 5. Whether the definition of “local authority” in the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, is to be amended to include “any other authority under whom any site, building, monument or any other place of historical, architectural or cultural importance rests or to whom such functions or responsibility is entrusted by the State”? 6. Whether the advise of the Commission is directory or mandatory? 7. Whether the object of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, is to protect all structures of cultural and heritage value in the State? 8. Whether the State can implement the directions of this court by making suitable amendments? 9. Whether the direction issued by the court regarding audit of accounts of the religious institutions is valid? 10. Whether the alienation of the immovable properties belonging to the religious institutions can be done without following due procedure? 11. Whether the minimum wages Act is applicable to employees of the temples also? 12. Whether the appointment of trustees with political connections is valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it has the power to issue mandamus to the Government to bring a statute or a statutory provision in force, when the State has failed in its duty to protect the symbols of heritage, tradition and culture. 2. The court held that it can amend the rules, if necessary, while dealing with a public interest litigation, in order to protect the cultural and heritage value as well the archaeological importance of the historical monuments, sites, temples and its properties. 3. The court held that the temples are covered under the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, as the definitions of “building”, “heritage building”, “monuments of heritage importance” etc., found in Section 2 of the said Act, are exhaustive to include within its ambit, the temples also. 4. The court held that the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, is wide enough to cover temples, as the definitions of “building”, “heritage building”, “monuments of heritage importance” etc., found in Section 2 of the said Act, are exhaustive to include within its ambit, the temples also. 5. The court held that the definition of “local authority” in the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, is to be amended to include “any other authority under whom any site, building, monument or any other place of historical, architectural or cultural importance rests or to whom such functions or responsibility is entrusted by the State”, to remove all the doubts. 6. The court held that the advise of the Commission is mandatory, as Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, mandates that every advice of the commission is to be accepted by the Government and local authority and the same is to be implemented promptly and effectively. 7. The court held that the object of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, is to protect all structures of cultural and heritage value in the State, as the Act is to constitute a Heritage Commission for the State in connection therewith or incidental thereto, for the protection of such structures. 8. The court held that the State can implement the directions of this court by making suitable amendments, as the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, are wide enough to cover temples. 9. The court held that the direction issued by the court regarding audit of accounts of the religious institutions is valid, as such a direction was issued only in the interest of the temples and all places of historical importance, as the officials of the HR&CE Department so far, have not maintained proper accounts relating to income from the lands, the extent of lands and leases, etc. 10. The court held that the alienation of the immovable properties belonging to the religious institutions can be done without following due procedure, as the HR&CE Act and the Rules framed thereunder, have to be scrupulously followed and it has to be established that such alienation is beneficial to the interest of the temple or institution and that, the alienation is the only option to ensure that the activities of temples including performance of rituals will be disturbed, if the property is not sold. 11. The court held that the minimum wages Act is applicable to employees of the temples also, as the State is under constitutional obligation, to ensure a decent living for all the workers and their families. 12. The court held that the appointment of trustees with political connections is valid, if the person so appointed proves to be religious and an ardent devotee and that, a mere political connection would not vitiate such appointment.

Final Decision: The review applications filed by the State Government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE) are disposed of. No costs.