The court determined that the temple does not qualify as a public religious institution under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, affirming prior appointments made by authorities.

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent dated 28.07.2021 in Nada.Na.Ka.No.2218/2021/A3 and to quash the same, and consequently to call for the records pertaining impugned communication / order dated 01.03.2022 by the fourth respondent and quash the same.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Arulmigu Chockanachiamman Temple situated at No.592 of No.18, Vempathy “B” Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District is believed to be in existence for more than 100 years and was founded by the petitioner’s ancestors and was maintained by them and for more than three generations, the idol of the said Temple is the Ishta Deivam of the petitioner’s family. After the demise of the petitioner’s father in the year 2007, the petitioner was entrusted with the affairs and management of the said Temple as hereditary trustee. The said Temple has inam lands to an extent of 10.75.5 Hectares of land in No.18, Vempathy Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District and those lands are leased out to third parties and out of the said income, the Temple affairs have been taken care and managed by the petitioner. Whileso, the petitioner received the impugned communication dated 28.07.2021 from the respondent stating that the Executive Officer of Chelleswarar Temple was appointed as in charge of Arulmigu Chockanachiamman Temple and on receipt of the said communication, the petitioner met the officials and explained the factual aspects, however, the petitioner received yet another communication after a lapse of six months stating to handover the charges to the newly appointed Fit Person / Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Chelleswarar Temple.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner made application under Section 63(b) of the H.R. & C.E. Act for declaring him as the Hereditary Trustee and the said application is pending. The learned counsel further submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Erode had issued order of appointment as non hereditary trustee to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 08.07.2005, however, the petitioner had no knowledge of the said fact and further submitted that the respondents simply collected some papers from the petitioner and had appointed him as non hereditary trustee. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and his ancestors had managed the subject Temple for many years and hence, the impugned communication is not sustainable one.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the subject Temple was brought under the control of the H.R. & C.E. Department in the year 1973 and a demand under Section 92(1) and (2) of the H.R. & C.E. Act was issued by the Commissioner in demand no.29336 dated 18.10.1973 and at that time, the assessable income of the subject Temple was Rs.1,470/-. The petitioner submitted application for appointing him as non hereditary trustee in the prescribed format on 05.06.2005 to the Assistant Commissioner and the said application was placed before the then District Committee of Erode District and a resolution was passed on 30.06.2005 vide Resolution No.556 and based on the said Resolution, the Assistant Commissioner, Erode issued the order of appointment as non hereditary trustee to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 08.07.2005. In the said proceedings, the period of trusteeship wa