COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

After hearing the learned Counsel at length, we reserved orders. Thereafter, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants produced a copy of the Government Order passed in G.O.No.41, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, dated 26.02.2021, appointing the Board of Trustees.

2. In the writ appeals, the issue is with respect to the tender called for by the Fit Person, who is also acting as the Executive Officer in the interest of the administration of the Temple. This was challenged on the primary ground that the Temple administration cannot run through the functioning of the Fit Person, who acts as the Executive Officer, without appointing the Board of Trustees.

3. We also noted the fact that the aforesaid practice has been going on for years. We are dealing with a case where the temple is not a denomination temple nor there is a hereditary trustee. Therefore, there can be only two options on the administration of the Temple. Option one is to administer it with the Executive Officer cum Fit Person and the other is through the Board of Trustees. Even if we agree with the contentions of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10903 of 2020, which led these two appeals, the consequence will be the management by the Board of Trustees. That situation has got remedied by the passing of the Government Order and we are not concerned with its veracity, inasmuch as it is not put into challenge. Since the Board of Trustees have been appointed, nothing survives in the writ appeals and they are accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the Board of Trustees to proceed further in accordance with law, by taking over the administration from the Fit Person.

4. Here comes the larger issue. The intention of the writ petitioner in W.P.

(MD)No.10903 of 2020 and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16416 of 2020 is not only to curtail the ongoing practice of administration being done by the Fit Person and the Executive Officer in the place of Board of Trustees, but also to facilitate a better mechanism which is not only for the management of the Temples but also the appointment of Trustees.

5. On this, we sought for the suggestions from the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, apart from asking others and their views. The reason for doing so is that we find numerous cases pertaining to the management of the Temples, including the property assets, particularly the immovable properties. This results in spate of litigations affecting the proper functioning of the Temples. Notwithstanding the huge properties owned by them, the Temples are found it very difficult to manage the day-today functioning. Secondly, the scheme of the Act, prima facie, indicates the pervasive control of the administration of the State. The management also lacks an element of expertise, apart from the numen in the religious practice. We find that Section 7(A) of the HR & CE Act though provides for constitution of the District Committee with the persons who have knowledge and expertise in the field of religion, the same is missing for the Temples coming under Clause (3) of Section 46 of the Act, which are obviously bigger in nature, augmenting higher income and dealing with large extent of properties both movable and immovable. Suffice it to state that these temples attract large number of devotees and therefore, the need is much more with respect to not only the appointment of trustees, but also the management.

6. Accordingly, the following issues are raised after hearing the respective learned Counsel appearing for the parties:-

(i) On a conjoint reading of Section 87 (3) & (4) with Section 92 of the HR & CE Act, is there a need for an external audit?

(ii) Is the need becomes more, in view of the provisions contained in Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act, particularly with respect to the object being achieved?

(iii) Are the property details among the other functions of the temple require to be uploaded with all requisite p