The appointment and powers of the Executive Officer in temple administration are subject to compliance with established schemes and the relevant provisions of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act.

ORDER

The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.20194 of 2023 was filed for Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 08.08.2023, which was passed appointing the Executive Officer. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.20384 of 2023 was filed for Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.01.2022, which is passed by including five sub temples along with the petitioner’s Adheenam Mutt.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that Madurai Adheenam is the oldest Saivite Adheenam, an active Centre of Saiva Siddhanta Philosophy, a form of Hindu Monastery in South India. It was established 1300 years ago and it was rejuvenated by Arulmigu Thirugnana Sambanthar. The present pontiff is 293^rd pontiff and its coronation ceremony took place on 23.08.2021. The Mutt also administers four temples in Thanjavur District and Tiruvarur District, namely Agniswarar Temple, Kanjaur, Sakshinatheswarar Temple, Thiruppurambiyam, Kaichinam Kaichineswarar Temple and Pannakaparanar Temple. Arulmigh Agniswaraswami Temple belongs to Madurai Thirugnana Sambandar Adheenam and for better administration of the temple, the District Court, Thanjavur West framed a Scheme in O.S.No.18 of 1939. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Thanjavur has modified the scheme of administration of the subject temple and its endowments in P.A.No.09/1965 dated 27.07.1965. Thereafter, the temple was administered based on the said scheme. Based on the scheme the respondent ought to appoint an Executive Officer who has to administer the temple along with the petitioner. In order to implement the scheme, the first respondent had appointed the third respondent as Executive Officer of the temple vide proceedings, dated 08.08.2023, which was received by the petitioner on 16.08.2023. But the contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not followed the scheme and not acted as per the scheme. Under Clause 3, a panel of three candidates shall be sent by the commissioner to the Hereditary Trustee and the Hereditary Trustee shall choose anyone from the panel. As per the said clause the selected person, the third respondent herein, ought to inform his joining to the petitioner before joining duty. Under sub clause (iv) of clause 3, before joining the duty, the candidates shall furnish the security as required under the relevant rules. Moreover, under the same clause of the modified scheme, the petitioner alone is vested with the rights to manage the temple. The Executive Officer is duty bound to assist the Hereditary Trustee in day-to-day administration of the temple and its properties and should collect the rents, conduct the festivals, and protect the jewels and lands of the temple.

3. Further the 3^rd respondent before joining as Executive Officer should furnish security bond in the name of the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Furnishing of Securities by Officers and Servant Rules (G.O.No.4055/Revenue dated 26.09.1961). The above rule and scheme were informed to the 3^rd respondent before joining the duty as Executive Officer, but he has neglected the same. The 3^rd respondent himself is the servant to the temple and the petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee, but without appearing before the Hereditary Trustee, without furnishing the security bond to the petitioner has violated the