The court emphasized the importance of fair representation of all relevant community stakeholders in the management of temple governance under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act.

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The scheme framed by the Joint Commissioner, Madurai region for the management of the petition mentioned temple in O.A.No.18 of 2008 vide order dated 16.02.2022 is under challenge in this writ petition. The temple, namely, Arulmigu Malaiyadi Karupanaswamy, Thiruparangundram is located on the girivala path. Materials on record indicate that both the Devendra Kula Velalar community and the Kallar Thevar vagaiyara had claim over the temple. O.S.No.249 of 1952 was filed by the Devendra Kula Velalar community on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The temple in question is located in the suit property. A compromise decree was passed on 08.08.1953. In this writ petition, one need not go into the binding nature of the said compromise decree. This is primarily because neither the Government nor the HR&CE department was made a party to the suit. However, the filing of such a suit or passing of the compromise decree clearly indicate that the Devendra Kula Velalar community had also staked a strong claim over the temple management.

3.While so, in the year 2008, fit person was appointed for the temple by the HR&CE department. In that background, O.A.No.18 of 2008 was filed by the Kallar Thevar vagaiyara under Section 64(1) of Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 before the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple. Unfortunately, the fit person alone was shown as the sole respondent. In my view, the members of Devendra Kula Vellalar community ought to have been made as respondents in a representative capacity.

4.Finally, a scheme came to be framed on 16.02.2022. This scheme vests the entire temple management in the hands of Kallar Thevar vagaiyara. The scheme is assailed primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In normal circumstances, I would have definitely quashed the scheme and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. However, I am unable to do so for the reason pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Kallar Thevar vagaiyara. It is seen that in the year 2019 itself, public notice was issued. In fact, K.Sivakumar kudumban, who has filed this writ petition, had received a copy of the notice and it appears that he had also submitted his objections. When K.Sivakumar kudumban had knowledge of the filing of the OA, he ought to have filed an application to get himself impleaded. It is not as if the scheme was framed on the very next day after the filing of the OA. It was pending consideration for 14 years. K.Sivakumar kudumban having knowledge of filing of the OA ought to have mounted a challenge immediately after the scheme was framed. He did not do so. He chose to wait for more than 3 years. In these circumstances, doctrine of laches would definitely operate.

5.At the same time, I cannot lose sight of the larger aspects. My attention is drawn to the Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959. Section 47(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act which states that every board of trustees constituted under clause (a) or clause (b) shall consist of not less than three and not more than five persons, of whom one shall be a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and another one shall be a woman. Of course, this stipulation may not apply to a scheme framed under Section 64 of the HR&CE Act. However, when the Devandra Kula Velalar community is a major community having a substantial stake in the matter, their presence could not have been excluded in the Board of trustees.

6.It is true that the Joint Commissioner had followed the procedure set out in the Framing of Schemes Rules, 1960. But technical adherence to rules is one thing an