The court affirmed that while trusteeship can be hereditary, poojariship is not, as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the secular nature of appointments.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notice of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 44/2020/Aa1 dated 06.03.2020 and quash the same.

1. Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple is situated at Melamadai, Madurai Town and it was declared as a public temple, by the judgment passed by the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, in A.S. No. 1 of 1925. It is a renowned Temple and 1000s of devotees are thronging in the Temple every day and even more in the weekends and special occasions. The exact date of the establishment of the Temple is not clear, however, it is said to be in existence since 1800. From the available records, it can be seen that the Temple was administered by one Pandi Kodangi Poosari and thereafter, by his son, Periyasamy Poosari. Periyasamy Poosari was having two sons, namely, Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari. Periyasamy Poosari died when his sons were at tender age. Therefore, the Temple was administered by one Valliammal W/o.Periyasamy Poosari. Thereafter, the Temple was administered by Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari, the sons of Periyasamy Poosari. Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari had five sons and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari had five wives, through whom, he had six sons. The Temple is now administered by the heirs of Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari and the trusteeship was held by the members of this family.

2. The petitioners before this Court are the heirs of Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari and they have filed these writ petitions claiming right of hereditaryship and poojariship of Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Madurai and the consequent shares in the Plate Collections and Hundial Collections.

3. Since all the writ petitions pertain to the affairs of Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, all of them were tagged and heard together.

4. Considering the fact that the issue is among the family members, this Court has also referred the cases to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench and also appointed Mediators. On the efforts taken by the Mediators, some parties have arrived at a solution and filed settlement agreements before this Court.

5. WP (MD) No. 5603/2020:

This writ petition is filed against the impugned notice dated 06.03.2020 issued by the first respondent/interim Committee, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of recovery should not be passed as against him, for recovering a sum of Rs.54,33,848/- [Hundial Share + Plate Collection].

Petitioner’s case:

1. The petitioner, Chellapandi Poosari, is one of the Hereditary Trustees as well as Poojari of the Temple. He was terminated by the Joint Commissioner, by order dated 06.07.2013. It was confirmed by the Secretary to Government on 27.02.2015. As against the same, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 305 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Melur, wherein, an order of interim stay was granted. Therefore, the petitioner has collected the Hundial Share + Plate Collections.

2. Though the suit in O.S. No. 305 of 2015 [renumbered as O.S. No. 86 of 2019] was dismissed by the Sub Court, the appeal filed by the petitioner in A.S. No. 25 of 2021 was allowed. Therefore, the petitioner’s position as Hereditary Trustee has been restored and as such, there is no question of illegal collection.

3. The impugned notice was issued by a Committee, which was constituted based on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as an interim arrangement, to manage the Temple. The Committee is not competent to issue the impugned notice, usurping the powers of taking action against the other Hereditary Trustees.

4. The Committee consists of five members, however, only two members have issued the impugned notice.

5. By the impugned notice, the first respondent has pre-determined the quantum of collection to be paid by the petitioner.

First r