IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Arulmighu Senthatti Ayyanar – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court must appoint board of trustees per section 49. (Para 6) |
6. The order dated 14.02.2015 appointing the Executive Officer is upheld by this Court. But that does not entitle the respondents to keep the temple permanently under the administration of the Executive Officer alone. There must be the Board of Trustees duly constituted as perSection 49of the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959, to administer the temple. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only praying for the administration of the temple by duly constituting the Board of Trustees. 7. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The first respondent shall take steps as perSection 49of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by issuing public advertisement as per the Rules calling for applications for appointment of the Board of Trustees by duly following the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including the rule of reservation and identify the suitable persons and appoint the Board of Trustees. (ii) The said exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than six months from the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.