Any modification to a religious institution's scheme under the HR & CE Act requires the authority to provide a mandatory hearing to existing trustees and all interested parties, as failure to do so violates procedural fairness and invalidates the modification.

[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed these present writ appeals.

2.The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that an appeal had already been filed before the Commissioner in A.P.No.15 of 2024, directed that status quo be maintained. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants have preferred these present appeals.

3. The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the original scheme was settled in the year 1982. Trustees were to be selected from five communities of Keela Theru Village. According to the appellants, these communites had been managing the temple for several years.

While such practice was continuing, another community belonging to a different place filed O.A.No.9 of 2021 seeking modification of the scheme. By order dated 07.03.2024, the Joint Commissioner modified the scheme by excluding the Konar Community and including the Rajakula Agamudaiyar Community. Hence, it is contended that the Joint Commissioner had no authority to modify the scheme, particularly when such modification was effected without hearing the existing trustees or persons interested, as mandated under Section 64(5) of the HR & CE Act.

4. It is further contended that neither the temple nor the other trustees were made parties to the proceedings and, therefore, merely because one of the excluded communities filed an appeal, the temple and the other trustees cannot be deprived of their right of appeal. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge directing maintenance of status quo is stated to be unsustainable.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the modification application had been pending since the year 1997 and was later renumbered as O.A. No.9 of 2021, pursuant to which an order came to be passed.

Against the said modification order, an appeal is now pending before the Commissioner and is likely to be listed on 22.06.2026.

6. Be that as it may, the entire issue pertains to the management of the temple. The principal grievance of the appellants is that while modifying the scheme, neither the temple nor the trustees nor any other interested persons were heard, and no notice was issued before the Joint Commissioner passed the impugned order. The original scheme had been settled by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1982. Hence, it is contended that the modified scheme is invalid in the eye of law. Though substantial emphasis has been placed on the loss of opportunity to agitate their rights before the original authority, the fact remains that an appeal against the modification is presently pending before the Commissioner.

7. It may be true that the temple and the other trustees were not made parties to the modification proceedings and thereby lost the opportunity to agitate their rights before the original authority. In such circumstances, since the appeal is now pending before the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall take into consideration the mandatory provisions contained under Section 64(5) of the HR & CE Act, which mandate hearing the existing trustees and all persons interested.

8. In view of the above, the Commissioner is directed to implead the temple and the other trustees, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and decide the issue in accordance with law, taking into consideration the mandatory provisions referred to above. Once the issue relating to the scheme is finally determined by the Commissioner after affording opportunity to all concerned persons, the entire dispute would stand resolved.

9. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the appeal in A.P. No.15 of 2024, after providing opportunity to the temple and th