Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Venkatesan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The common question that arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is as to whether a temple constituting a “Religious Institution” within the meaning of Section 6(18) of the TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT ACT , 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”) would qualify as a “Public Authority” in terms of the definition under Section 2 (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act').
2. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2012, insofar as it designates trustees of the petitioner temples under the administration / governance of HR and CE Department, as “Public Information Officer” under RTI Act. The challenge is primarily on the premise that the temples do not qualify as a “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
3. We shall refer to the facts pertaining to Sri Muthumariamman Temple in W.P.(MD).No.552 of 2024, for the purposes of deciding the common question that arises for consideration in these writ petition viz., whether temples qualify as “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
3.1
Temples do not qualify as a 'Public Authority' under the RTI Act as they are not owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, thus invalidating a prior circular imposing such desig....
Temples do not qualify as 'Public Authorities' under the Right to Information Act as they are neither owned nor substantially financed by the government; mere public contributions do not equate to go....
A temple is classified as private if it lacks features of public worship and management rests with a specific community, as established through historical evidence and refusal of public rights.
The determination of a temple's status as public or private hinges on the right of public access and the evidence of dedication to public worship, not merely on the presence of public worship.
Point of Law : Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred merely because there is an alternative remedy of appeal.
The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.
The Air Force Sports Complex is not a public authority under the RTI Act as it lacks substantial government control and financing, operating independently without performing public functions.
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
