The Inspector lacks authority to conduct an enquiry under Section 64(1) of the Act, which mandates that only the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner can settle schemes after proper consultation.

ORDER :

(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.)

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 21.03.2024, whereby, the 2nd respondent viz., the Inspector, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Thiruparankundram, Madurai, had called upon the petitioner to appear before him with relevant documents for enquiry, in relation to a scheme to be framed under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 , (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner is a trustee of Arulmigu Sri Kalyana Vinayagar Thirukkoil situated at Pandiyan Nagar, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as "the Temple"). The Temple was founded and consecrated sometime in the year 1959. The Temple was founded by the members of Saiva Pillamar, Gowra Naidu, Yathavar, Nadar, Thondai Mandala Muthaliyar communities living at Pandiyan Nagar, Madurai. It is submitted that the members of the above five communities were functioning as Trustees of the Temple.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire residents of Pandiyan Nagar, recognised the members of the five communities as permitted rather entitled to manage/administer the Temple. It was further submitted that there has not been any interference by members of any other community, in the management of the Temple. The electricity service connection for the Temple stands in the name of the said Temple. An account has also been opened in a bank for depositing the income, if any, derived from the Temple. A poojari has been appointed for rendering pooja services in the Temple. Since the Temple does not have any income, the salary for poojari has been paid by the community members. The general public has a right to worship as a matter of right.

4. While so, the trustees, i.e., the members of the five communities referred supra, filed O.A.No.5 of 1995 under Section 64(1) of the Act, for framing a Scheme for the Temple. It may be relevant to note that Kumbabhishegam was performed sometime in the year 2014, at the instance of the community members. No donation was collected from the general public.

5. During the period 2014 to 2016, the deities of Vinayagar Sithi, Puthi, Navagraham, Nalli Devasena, Mehta Subramaniyar, Durgai Paramaeswar, lyyappan, Sri Bhuvaneswri Ambal Sannathi, Sri Kalyana Anjineyar, Tatchanamoorthy, Kalabairavar, Lakshmi Narayanar had been consecrated by the community members. However, the original application filed under Section 64 of the Act was returned by the 1st respondent. A writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.18505 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner against the above original application being returned. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31.07.2023, directing the 1st respondent to number and dispose of the original application.

6. Pursuant thereto, the said application was numbered as O.A.No.24 of 2023 and the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 27.12.2023 to the petitioner, fixing the date for enquiry on 03.01.2024. The petitioner sought time inasmuch as the time provided was inadequate. The 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a fresh notice would be issued, intimating the date. However, no notice/intimation was issued by the 2nd respondent, for almost three months.

7. While so, on 21.03.2024, the 2nd respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to be present before the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2024 for an enquiry. The petitioner visited the office of the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2024, the 2nd respondent was not available. Thereafter, without issuing any further notice, the 2nd respondent has chosen to submit/file a report before the 1st respondent, without obtaining statements or documents. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 21.03.2024.

8. Case of the petitioner:

8.1 That in terms of Section 64 of the Act, the Joint Commissioner is conferred with power to frame a scheme for the proper adm