Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18243
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Srimathy, J
Ramesh Nadar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.13749 of 2014|M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2014|W.M.P(MD)No.18126 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muthuganesapandian
For the Respondents: S.P.Maharajan
The appointment of a 'Fit Person' for a temple under the HR&CE Act requires strict adherence to natural justice, including prior notice to the management and the issuance of a reasoned, speaking order demonstrating objective evidence of mismanagement.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 49 - Appointment of Fit Person - Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement of speaking order - The appointment of a Fit Person is a drastic measure that carries civil consequences - It is incumbent upon the authority to issue a show cause notice and provide an opportunity of hearing prior to such appointment - An order appointing a Fit Person must be a speaking order, disclosing subjective satisfaction based on evidence of mismanagement or specific grounds under the Act; mere allegations of misappropriation without supporting evidence or procedure do not justify the appointment. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15, 21)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - When an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is non-speaking, the availability of an alternative remedy (appeal) does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 11, 17) Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenged an order appointing a 'Fit Person' to manage a temple, arguing it was a private temple managed by a specific family community. The respondents alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, leading to the appointment. The petitioner denied these claims, asserting that the reserve funds were for legitimate temple maintenance and expenses, and that the appointment was made without any prior notice or inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to provide evidence of mismanagement or misappropriation. The order was issued without issuing a prior show cause notice, effectively violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the order was non-speaking as it lacked specific reasons required by the Act.
Issues: Whether the appointment of a Fit Person was legally valid in the absence of prior notice, evidence of mismanagement, and a reasoned or speaking order, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to appoint a Fit Person must be exercised cautiously and fairly; it requires subjective satisfaction based on actual evidence of maladministration, the issuance of a notice, and the passage of a reasoned speaking order. Failing these procedures renders the appointment illegal.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the challenge against the appointment of a fit person. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. necessity of evidence, speaking orders, and natural justice in temple administration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal precedents regarding the appointment of fit persons/executive officers under the hr&ce act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final determination quashing the illegal appointment due to procedural violations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned proceedings, dated 18.03.2014, passed by the 1st respondent, wherein the respondent had appointed Fit Person.
2. Heard Mr.Muthuganesapandian, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.S.P.Maharajan, the Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the material documents available on record.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Arulmigu Kamatchiamman Thiru Kovil, situated at Keelaeral, Thoothukudi District is a Private temple and its neither registered nor notified under Section 71 of HR & CE Act. The group of families of Nadar Community, namely Poosari Nadar, Mandhiri Nadar, Kathavan Nadar, Karuppan Nadar, who hails from Keela Eral village alone manages the temple. The said temple was constructed by their ancestors and there is no idol worship in the temple. In the name of Kamatchiamman Thirukovil, a Vilakku has been lighted and that is being worshipped by the ancestors of the said four group of family members. The respondents have visited the temple and inspected on 16.03.2012 and subsequent to his visit, a communication, dated 23.04.2012 was issued directing the petitioner to rectify the defects. The defect states to obtain an order to manage the temple by Nadar, to install lightning arrester, to affix the HR&CE seal in the Hundi and various other defects.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that in the said communication has not stated that there is no mismanagement. The petitioner after receiving the same had submitted a representation, dated 12.06.2012 to the 3rd respondent and stated that they have removed the two Hundials and making arrangements to install lightning arrester and in addition to that they have assured to cooperate with the department. The contention of the petitioner is that the four families have worshipped the family deity, moreover there is no idol and there is no finding to the effect that there is mismanagement. Therefore, the respondents are not having any power to appoint any Fit person when there are no grounds to appointment any Fit person.
5. The further contention of the petitioner is that for appointment of the Fit person, the respondents ought to be pass an order stating the reasons for appointing the Fit person. The respondents have not narrated any facts or reasons for appointment of any Fit person. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner there is no proceedings alleging mismanagement in the temple. None of the provisions stated in the HR & CE Act has been followed, before appointing of the Fit person.
6. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal. Further the respondents submitted that the respondents directed to affix seal of HR&CE in Hundials but the petitioner refused to affix and had remover the Hundials, which is violating the instructions of the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner is not increasing the rent periodically to the shops. The petitioner has deposited more than Rs.3.5 lakhs in the bank which is the income from the temple for the past six months and has misappropriated the amount. Thereby there is misappropriation of amount and hence fit person is appointed. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The allegation of misappropriation is denied by the petitioner and submitted that the temple is not fetching regular
