BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Muthukumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai and Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(MD).No.19146 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16209 and 19369 of 2024
Decided On : 28-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the temple and trusteeship (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delegation of powers under the hr&ce act (Para 5) |
| 3. direction for proper inquiry under the act (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
The present writ petition is filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent viz., The Inspector, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Srivilliputhur to submit a report afresh before the 1st respondent i.e., The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai by conducting an inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 22/1959 (in short "the Act")., in respect of O.A.No.30/2023.
2. Brief Facts
2.1. The petitioner is a trustee of Arulmighu Thangavinayagar Temple, Vathrayapu, Virudhunagar District. The said Temple was consecrated in the early 1900's by Adhinarayana Pillai and Chinnasamy Pillai, children of Gurusamy Pillai. Both of whom did not have any male children. In terms of the will of the founder of the Temple, the Temple could be administered by male legal heirs. Muthusamy Pillai, Sangaiya Pillai and Thillainayagam Pillai are the children of the sisters of Adhinarayana Pillai and Chinnasamy Pillai.
2.2. A settlement deed was executed on 15.04.1937 conferring the rights of trusteeship on Muthusamy Pillai, Sangaiya Pillai and Thillainayagam Pillai. Pursuant to the above settlement deed, they were functioning as trustees of the petition Temple. While so, Muthusamy Pillai and Sangaiya Pillai died without any male children, leaving Thillainayagam Pillai as the sole trustee of the Temple. After the demise of Thillainayagam Pillai, his legal heir Muthukrishna Pillai continued as Trustee of the Temple. The petitioner viz., Muthukumar and Krishnakumar are the children of Muthukrishna Pillai, who are the present managing trustees of the Temple.
2.3. While so, a notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Virudhunagar District calling for application, for appointment to the office of non-hereditary Trustee of the petition temple, fixing the last date for submission of application as 07.09.2023. Aggrieved by the above notice calling for application from eligible persons for appointment as non-hereditary Trustee, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.21845 of 2023. The above writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 08.09.2023, whereby, the impugned notice calling for appointment of non- hereditary trustees to the petition Temple was quashed, on the premise that the petitioner's ancestors have constructed the Temple and the respondent authorities cannot appoint non-hereditary trustee, without issuing notice to the petitioner. This Court followed the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu W.P.No. 574 of 2015 dated 07.06.2021, wherein, under the heading “Trustee”, certain directives were issued. The following portion of the Division Bench order of this Court was extracted by the learned Judge in the order dated 08.09.2023;
"TRUSTEE
(54) The HR&CE Department shall file a report before this Court within a period of eight (8) weeks listing out the number of temples without Trustees, the duration of such vacancy, the particulars of the persons appointed as "Fit Person" and the steps taken by the Department to appoint trustees.
(55) If no hereditary trustees stake claim, then steps must be taken to appoint non-hereditary trustees. The non-hereditary trustees must be from the religious denomination, to which the temple belongs to, without the political background.
(56) Stringent rules on the conduct, character, interest and knowledge on both religious affairs as well as administrative abilities of the trustees, must be enacted to ensure that the right person is appointed to manage the religious affairs of the temples.
(57) Keeping in mind that the overall administration shall be with the HR&CE Department, the authorities shall
The judicial inquiry under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act must be conducted by the Joint Commissioner, as the power to delegate this authority is not granted, ensuring legal compliance and du....
The Joint Commissioner must conduct inquiries under Section 63(b) of the Act, as delegation of this duty to the Inspector is invalid, affirming that statutory roles cannot be delegated without explic....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the power to declare an institution as a religious institution and appoint a fit person under Section....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
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 court emphasized strict adherence to procedural fairness and statutory safeguards in quasi-judicial proceedings involving trustee matters under the applicable act.
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.