Administrative intervention to appoint a temporary caretaker over a managed religious institution requires a prior show-cause notice and inquiry into mismanagement to satisfy natural justice, while ownership of all endowed assets must reside exclusively with the institution.

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.03.2026. By the said order, a fit person was appointed to manage the Arulmighu Kaliamman Temple, Oonjampatti, Theni Taluk, Theni District.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material records of the case, it is the petitioners claim that the petitioners father/grandfather built the temple. Furthermore, he had also endowed certain properties for conducting the poojas in respect of the temple. After the grandfather, the petitioners have continued to administer the temple.

3. Earlier, when third parties attempted to intervene in the property, the poojari appointed by the petitioner, namely Kandasamy had filed a suit and the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).No.767 of 2008 was decided in favor of the temple. The property is well maintained, and the income is being used for the purposes of the temple. There can be no allegation against the petitioners, who is a hereditary trustee.

4. Despite this, a fit person was suddenly appointed without any charge or allegation against the petitioners. The appointment of the fit person is therefore illegal. Moreover, no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioners to respond to any allegations or provide explanations.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in S. Gopalasubramaniam vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tirunelveli (W.A. (MD).No.32 of 2022), particularly paragraphs 10 and 19 of the said judgment:-

“10. The question as to whether a show cause notice is required before passing an order under Section 49 of H.R. & C.E. Act is considered by this Court in several cases and it has been consistently held, except in few cases that a show cause notice is mandatory before initiating action under Section 49 of H.R. & C.E. Act, especially, when power under Section 49 is exercised based on allegations of irregularities or mis-management as against the person, who is in charge of the Temple as Trustee.

19. From a conjoint reading and harmonious construction of Section 47(2) and Section 49 read with Section 54 of H.R. & C.E. Act it can be legitimately inferred that power can be exercised to appoint a trustee or fit person only when a religious institution is not properly managed by the trustees in office. When the temple is having trustee in office, order cannot be passed without issuing any show cause notice to the person in charge of the affairs and administration of the Temple. The Act cannot be interpreted to confer unfettered or absolute power on the Assistant Commissioner to interfere with the administration of a Temple by a trustee unless the appointment of fit person is required to secure better administration for the Temple. When the power can be exercised only depending upon a few circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner before initiating action should satisfy himself after holding enquiry that the allegations against the existing trustee is established that it is necessary in the interest of securing a better administration by appointing a fit person or trustee or trustees or constitute a Board of Trustees.”

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 would submit that, apart from the petitioner, there were also inter-se