The government cannot unilaterally alter the term of trustees without following the statutory procedures outlined in relevant laws; modifications must comply with Section 64(5) of the Act.

ORDER :

1. W.P. No.17419 of 2025 has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Paragraph No.3 of G.O.(P) No.275, dated 17.11.2023, Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments (AN3-1)

2. Department, insofar as it relates to the term of office of the trustees as 2 years and to direct the respondents to change the term of office of the trustees from 2 years to 3 years and consequently, direct the 4^th respondent/Executive Officer to hand over management of the temple to the trustees as per the Scheme of the temple in O.S. No.19/1934 dated 31.03.1936, on the file of the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu. 2. W.P. No.22157 of 2025 has been filed to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings in Nada.Na.Ka.No.7792/2006/A2, dated 06.03.2006, on the file of the 3^rd respondent on the ground that there is no definite period of office is prescribed in the order as per the judgment in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 5 SCC 75 and to consequently, direct the 4^th respondent/Executive Officer to hand over management of the temple to the trustees as per the Scheme referred herein above.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muruganantham, learned counsel for the petitioner in both Writ Petitions, as well as Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The short, yet interesting issue that is involved in W.P. No.17419 of 2025 is as to whether the Government has the power to reduce the tenure of the Trustees who are elected as per the Scheme settled under Act II of 1927 (Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act), from three years to two years, without resorting to the procedure prescribed under Section 64(5)(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. (hereinafter referred to as '1959 Act').

5. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the Scheme was settled by the Civil Court under Act II of 1927. In such circumstances, pointing out to the provisions of the 1951 enactment and the present 1959 Act, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Scheme decree passed by the Civil Court is deemed to have been settlement under the two enactments.

6. With regard to the alleged repugnancy that is relied on by the respondents to modify the tenure from three years to two years, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that Section 47 (1) and 47(2) of the 1959 Act, dealing with appointment of Trustees, no doubt, prescribes the tenure of two years, however, only under sub section 3. He would contend that Section 47 of the Act cannot be interpreted to override the appointment of trustees under the Scheme in question, which is admittedly one deemed to have been settled under the present enactment as well as under the 1951 Act.

7. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would further concede that the Department does have a power to modify the terms of the Scheme, however it can be done only by taking recourse to Section 64 of the Act and not otherwise. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would also refers to Section 39 of the 1951 Act and Section 47 of 1959 Act and contend that there is a difference between the two provisions in as much as under Section 39 of the 1951 Act, appointment of the Trustees is unrestricted whereas under Section 47 of the 1959 Act, it can be done only on satisfaction of the two conditions which have been set out under Clauses 1 and 2. He would therefore state that it is only in respect of Sub Sections 1 and 2 of 4