The court directed the disposal of a pending application for framing a temple scheme under the TN HR&CE Act, contingent upon the petitioner handing over the temple's administration to the appointed fit person, failing which forcible possession may be taken.

PRAYER

: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No. 1762/ 2023 Aa4 dated 06/07/2023 and quash the same and dispose the original application dated 16/07/2012 pending under Section 64 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959).

For Petitioner: Sankar Ramasamy For Respondents: Mr.K.Karthikeyan,

Government Advocate for RR 1 to 5 Mr.Srinivasan, For R-6

O R D E R

Seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No. 1762/ 2023 Aa4 dated 06/07/2023, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed an original application under Section 64(1) of the Act on 16.07.2012, for framing a Scheme for the Temple and to incorporate a permanent provision for appointment of non-hereditary trustees from amongst the members of Vanniyars and Pillaimar communities, as the said two community people look after the affairs of the Temple. However, the same is pending on the file of the second respondent. Meanwhile, the third respondent by order dated 24.01.2012, appointed an Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Vellai Pillaiyar Temple, Aathur Town as ‘Thakkar’. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25159 of 2012 for quashing the order dated 24.01.2012. This Court, vide its order dated 01.11.2012, directed the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 16.07.2012 seeking for framing the scheme for appointment of non-hereditary trustees within a period of six months, but the same is still pending.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner filed another W.P.No.24477 of 2015 to dispose of the petition pending before the 2nd respondent and this Court vide its order dated 10.08.2015, directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of four months, but the same has not been complied with by the second respondent. Subsequently, the sixth respondent made a representation to the third respondent stating as if the petitioner is unauthorisedly managing the Temple and to take action against the petitioner. Since the same was not considered, he filed W.P.No.399 of 2023, seeking for a direction to the respondents 3 & 4 to consider his representation and this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023, disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents 3 & 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and the impugned order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent stating that the entire administration of the said Temple, which is under the control of the petitioner, shall be handed over to the Executive Officer by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Salem. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to handover the entire administration of Arulmigu Rayadurai Pachaiamman Temple to the fit person and therefore, prays for considering the representation dated 16.07.2012 thereby allowing the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. This Court, without interfering with the order impugned herein, directs the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.07.2012 pending under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law, subject to handing over of entire administration of Arulmigu Rayadurai Pachaiamman Temple to the fit person. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to handover the administration of the subject Temple to the fit person, l