The court upheld the appointment of a fit person for temple administration, emphasizing that prior claims by the petitioner were withdrawn, negating his right to contest the appointment without a hearing.

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

This Writ petition is filed with the prayer of Certiorarified Mandamus calling the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 made in G.O.Ms.No.288 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to handover the possession of the administration of the Sri Balamurugan Temple situated at Porur village to the petitioner and pass such other orders.

2. Heard Mr.Singaravelan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner society has filed a Revision aggrieved by the order of appointment of a fit person with reference to the temple in question. As a matter of fact the entire temple was put up only by the petitioner Sabha and its President S.Damodharan was only taking care of the temple from the inception. While so suddenly making allegations, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever, a fit person is appointed. The said exercise is not in accordance with Section 49 of the Act. Secondly, when a person is in charge of a temple be it by way of express appointment or by defacto taking care of the temple, if the authorities want to exercise the power under the Act to appoint a fit person on certain charges, the same cannot be done without affording an opportunity of hearing to the said person. The order permanently removes the petitioner from the possession of the temple and administration of the temple. The petitioner was associated with the temple for a long period of time and suddenly he is removed unceremoniously without his version being heard at any point of time. The revision authority omitted to consider the very many grounds raised in the revision and answered without proper application of mind. The question whether the temple is a private temple or not is still at large before the Civil Court. First Appeal filed by the petitioner is pending. Under the circumstances, the order impugned in the Writ Petition cannot stand and therefore, this Court to interfere.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 pointing out to the counter filed in the earlier connected matter and pointing out the extraction of the counter affidavit that is filed in the revision before the Commissioner in RP.No.191 of 2017, would submit that it is the case of the petitioner that the temple is a private temple and HR & CE should not interfere in the same. He had filed OS.No.296 of 2005 and the same is withdrawn by him. Therefore, the temple is not a private temple. The petitioner also filed an application to declare himself as the hereditary trustee in OA.No.2 of 1988 and he had also withdrawn the same on 01.06.2005. It is the case of the respondent that the said suit is also withdrawn. Thereafter when the authorities appointed a fit person by an order dated 13.06.2005 the petitioner again challenged the same by filing another suit in O.S.No.463 of 2006 and the same was also withdrawn by him. Thereafter the present order is passed only changing the fit person by way of transfer. The fit person originally appointed being the Executive Officer since came to be working at Sri Sakthi Vinayagar Thirukoil as his headquarters there was difficulty for him and therefore in his place the Executive Officer of Porur Arulmighu Ramnatheeswarar Temple himself was appointed as a fit person. It is this order which is now challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, when the petitioner's earlier grounds have been deemed to be rejected on account of his withdrawal of the suit, there cannot be any grievance with reference to the change of fit person. There is no stigma that is caused in the original order of appointing the fit person or in the present order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6. Adm