Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15554
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
M.NEELAKANDAN – Appellant
Versus
THE COLLECTOR – Respondent
Temple administration disputes require adherence to due process and official oversight to ensure equitable management.
Headnote:
Temple - Writ Petition - Section 29, HR&CE Act - The court interpreted HR&CE Act Section 29, emphasizing the need for due process in managing temple property and administration, ultimately dismissing undue influence and asserting the authority of HR&CE officials in resolving disputes over temple management.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a poojari, claimed the key to a temple amid management disputes with rival trustee parties. The petitioner maintained the temple with community support, and faced pressure from outsiders to relinquish control of the key without following due process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was holding the key without any formal orders to hand it over. It directed an inquiry to resolve disputes regarding the key and temple assets and emphasized due process in temple administration.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should hand over the temple key and how the temple management disputes should be resolved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that HR&CE officials must ensure proper procedures are followed when managing temple assets and resolving conflicts between rival parties, reinforcing the authority of those tasked with temple administration.
Final Decision: Writ Petition disposed of with directions for inquiry.
O R D E R
By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the poojari of Sri Arulmigu Kuthuandavar Temple, Kuthuandavar Nagar, Rajakal post, Pernampet Taluk, Vellore District. The temple is present since ages and the belief goes on tht pandavars, during their vanavas had visited this temple and since ages Mahabharath is recited in this temple during festival with wooden status of Panadavas and Draupathi. As time passed the temple came under HR&CE/respondents 3 to 5, the temple was lastly renovated during the year 2021 by the villagers. The temple was administered by hereditary trustee late Mr.S.Jayabalan's family, the respondents 8 & 9 and others being the rival parties continuously causing trouble and disturbing the temple festival. A peace committee meeting was convened comprising Tahsildar, Gudiyatham Taluk, Inspector of Police, Imarabad Police Station and S.Jayabalam, respondents 8 & 9 and others and decided to keep the temple key with the then Poojari Mr.Pandurangan and gold jewels about 20 sovereigns shall be kept with 9th respondent, till date the 9th respondent had not handed over the temple jewels to the temple. During 2005, the 9th respondent and others forcibly took over the temple from then S.Jayabalan family. Thereafter, S.Jayabalan had filed WP.No.10670/2006 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 19.04.2006 allowed the writ petition with certain directions to the respondents therein. The 9th respondent had also filed WP.No.17040/2006 and the same was dismissed by this Court on
01.04.2010.
3. The petitioner and others along with S.Jayabalan were maintaining the temple and the petitioner was serving as Poojari along with one Pandurangan in the temple since 2003. Subsequently, the respondents 8 and 9 and others causing trouble to disturb the temple festival and conducting rival festivals. In the year 2013, under Mr.Gajandran, Tahsildar, Gudiyatham Taluk conducting meeting between (A – Party) S.Jayabalan group and (B-party) 8th respondent and there was no consensus, hence, the temple festival was stopped and the Executive Officer, HR&CE took the temple key and the temple was closed for four months and performing pooja once in a week. In the meanwhile, the village elders and others approached the Executive Officer, HR&CE and convinced him, the temple key was handed over to the villagers and the villagers given the key to the petitioner. Since, 2013 the petitioner is performing all the poojas and maintaining the temple with the help of donors. During April 2024, one Devi, political person called the petitioner over phone and directed to hand over the temple key to the respondents 8 and 9. The petitioner replied stating that he will hand over the key to the officials only upon notice proceedings and due process of law. The case in OA.No.18/1999 filed by the villagers is pending before the 4th respondent against the respondents 8 & 9. The respondents 5 & 7 are summoning and influencing the petitioner for handing over the temple key. The petitioner further states that there are process and procedures to be followed in handing over the key and possession of the temple. The respondents 5 & 7 are not following the due process of law. The petitioner in the interest of villagers and general public filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the official respondents would submit that the petitioner is a Poojari or not is not known to them and he would seek instructions from the official respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen from records that the petitioner himself states that he is the person who is having the key of the temple and no orders have been in this regard for handing over the key and to perform pooja. Since, there are some respondents and outsiders are influencing the pet
