Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH
P. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of archakar appointment and continuance. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. writ petition discussion and factual background. (Para 4 , 5 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. fourth respondent's claimed rights as archakar. (Para 6 , 22) |
| 4. court observation on proceedings and administrative decisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 19 , 23) |
| 5. decisions about archakar appointments require adherence to statutory processes. (Para 10) |
| 6. ongoing temple administration issues must be settled expeditiously. (Para 12 , 14 , 18) |
| 7. direction for timely resolution of ongoing inquiries. (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER :
(N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.7.2024 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to take over the Seethammal Morai till the revision application is disposed of by the second respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :
(i) The fourth respondent was never an Archakar in the third respondent temple. However, for the first time, the third respondent, by order dated 04.12.2017, recognized the fourth respondent as the Archakar of the third responde
Continuity of worship must be preserved during administrative inquiries, and appointments should be respected unless compelling irregularities are proven.
The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
The judgment clarified that the abolition of hereditary rights under the Act precludes claims to Archakatvam service based solely on lineage without meeting statutory criteria.
The court ruled that the administrative authority exceeded its jurisdiction in determining hereditary rights, necessitating resolution by the Endowments Tribunal as per Act 30 of 1987.
Point of Law- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub sections (1) & (2) of this Section, the qualified members of those Archaka families which were continuing in archakatvam service under the prov....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
