Court affirmed the continuing authority to appoint non-hereditary trustees while addressing pending hereditary claims without vacating procedures under the H.R. & C.E. Act.

COMMON ORDER

All the three writ petitions are connected and are therefore taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD)No.18857 of 2025 has been filed by one Naganatha Durai challenging the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, by which a Fit Person was appointed to manage the affairs of Arulmighu Angala Parameshwari Amman Thirukovil, Urapuli Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

3. W.P.(MD)No.18558 of 2025 has also been filed by the said Naganatha Durai challenging the impugned notice dated 30.06.2025, whereby applications were invited for appointment as non-hereditary trustees in respect of the aforesaid temple.

4. W.P.(MD)No.33977 of 2025 has been filed by one Manickam seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to constitute the Trust Board by appointing non-hereditary trustees in respect of the very same temple.

5. The case of the petitioner, Naganatha Durai, is that he, along with others, had originally filed O.A.No.23 of 2003 for framing a scheme in respect of the said temple. Initially, the application was rejected. On appeal, the Commissioner remanded the matter for de novo consideration and the matter is still pending.

During the pendency of the same, when the authorities issued a notification dated 05.10.2020 for appointment of non-hereditary trustees, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14431 of 2020. By order dated 15.10.2020, this Court directed disposal of O.A.No.23 of 2003 within a period of twelve weeks and, in the meantime, directed that the notification dated 05.10.2020 be kept in abeyance.

6. According to the petitioner, the spirit of the said order is that the original application should first be disposed of and only thereafter any appointment should be made. Placing reliance on Section 63(4) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the H.R. & C.E. Act”), it is contended that while framing a scheme, due importance has to be given to denominational or customary rights. It is therefore submitted that the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the appointment of a Fit Person or initiated steps for appointment of non-hereditary trustees.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed O.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee, and the same is also pending. Without disposing of the said application, the impugned order appointing a Fit Person has been passed and the impugned notice inviting applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees has been issued. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)Nos.18557 and 18558 of 2025.

8. The case of the writ petitioner Manickam is that the temple has been administered by non-hereditary trustees over a long period of time. When the tenure of the non-hereditary trustees appointed in the year 2023 came to an end, and no expeditious steps were taken for fresh appointments despite reminders, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to constitute the Trust Board.

9. The learned counsel for Naganatha Durai would contend that the appointment of the Fit Person is illegal, as no reasons have been assigned. Unless there are specific allegations regarding mismanagement, such appointment is unwarranted. It is also contended that when both O.A.No.23 of 2003 and O.A.No. 4 of 2025 are pending, the respondents cannot proceed with the appointment of non-hereditary trustees. It is further submitted that Section 53(4) of the H.R. &

C.E. Act, which is referred to by the respondents, is not applicable.

10. Per contra, the learned Additional Governm