O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the first respondent. Through the impugned order, the 1st respondent has appointed a fit person who is arrayed as

2nd respondent.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent who is appointed as Fit person is already serving as Executive Officer of Arulmigu Muthumariamman Kovil, Karaikudi. Even though the impugned order was passed as early as 2018, the said officer has not taken charge. This fact is accepted by the petitioner as well as the respondents.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent took a strong objection and submitted that the writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in 2018, hence, the present writ petition is a belated one. Even though it is a belated one, as on date, since the fit person has not taken charge, this Court is inclined to interfere in the order.

4. The next contention of the petitioner is that the said temple is a village temple belonging to a particular community and is being managed by 11 Trustees. The Trust is an unregistered trust having 11 Trustees, 8 belonging to the same community and 3 belonging to the villagers and there is no dispute among the Trustees and there is no allegation of misappropriation or mismanagement. Even though the temple is not having any dispute, the petitioner’s rights ought to have been recognized eight by HR&CE or by competent Civil Court. As on date, the petitioner has neither filed any petition before the HR & CE nor filed any suit before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file either a suit or Section 63 petition, until then, the existing Trustees shall manage the temple.

5. Moreover, before appointing the Fit Person, the respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner temple and this fact is not denied by the respondents. As far as the appointment of Fit person is concerned the Hon’ble High Court is several cases had held that the appointment of Fit person ought to be based on facts and circumstances, based on the evidence of misappropriation or mismanagement or where ever no Trustees not available etc. In W.P. (MD)No.20915 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015 in Arulmigu Angala Eswari Amman Temple Vs. Commissioner and others, wherein the Court has held as under:

“28.In the case on hand, the second respondent without giving notice to the petitioner or to other trustees straight away issued the impugned order appointing the 3rd respondent as fit person vesting all the powers of the trustees, which action has got civil consequences. As held by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, when the rights of the parties are likely to be affected by virtue of his action in appointing the Executive Officer as fit person, it is incumbent on the part of the second respondent to issue notice to them, for the compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of view that the failure on the part of the second respondent in not issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to other trustees vitiates the impugned order dated 26.11.2013.

29.Further, the order appointing a fit person should be a speaking order and should disclose the reasons as to why the authority namely, Assistant Commissioner, was of the opinion that the affairs of the temple were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there was a need for immediate appointment of a fit person. In the impugned order, there is absolutely no reason has been shown for appointing the third respondent as fit person. It may not be necessary for the Assistant Commissioner to pass an elaborate order, but the order should speak for itself and give reasons as to why in the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner, the power under Section 49(1) of the Act was exercisable. In the absence of reasons for appointment of the fit person, the impugned order has to be necessarily held to be a non-speaking or