W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 06.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022

and

W.M.P(MD).Nos.6492 and 6496 of 2022

P.Sasikumar Poosari

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Sivagangai,

Sivagangai District.

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Paramakudi,

Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Paramakudi,

Ramanathapuram District.

4.Ayyanar Poojari,

Arulmigu Ayyanar Thirukovil,

Kattuparamakudi,

Paramakudi,

Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned

proceeding in Na.Ka.No.147/2022/A3 dated 20.01.2021 of the second

respondent signed on 20.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently

directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to

operate the Ayyanar Kovil Bank Account No.157601000011311 in third

respondent Bank.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manikandan

For R1 & R2

: Mr.M.Lingadurai

Special Government Pleader

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P(MD).No.9043 of 2022

ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings of the second

respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/2022/A3, dated 20.01.2021, whereby,

informing and authorising the Bank Manager that Ayyanar Poojari

would be authorised to operate Bank Account No. 157601000011311 in

the name of the temple.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

earlier operating the bank account from the year 2019. By

e.f.vz;.2371/2019/M2> dated 24.07.2019, the petitioner was

authorised to operate the bank account. Suddenly, without any

reasons the second respondent, removed the petitioner from the

authorised person to operate the bank account and one Ayyanar had

been nominated. Further, he submitted that when enquired the Bank

Manager, a letter was shown by the third respondent, wherein,

allegations have been made against the petitioner. The petitioner

was neither informed of any such allegation nor called for any

explanation. In such circumstances, the second respondent on the own

coming to the conclusion with one sided materials are not proper.

Hence this writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1

and 2 submits that the petitioner is a poojari who conduct pooja for

non-listed temple. It is a temple without income. The temple

survives on the Oru Kaalai Pooja Scheme. As per the scheme, monthly

maintenance money is remitted from the Commissioner of Hindu

Religious and Charitable and Endowments Department to the Bank

accounts of the respective needy temple and for the pooja and other

expenses, poojaris are authorised. In this case, the petitioner was

authorised in the year 2019. Apart from the petitioner, there are

other poojaris, who perform poojai in turns. There was some

allegation against the petitioner for not properly conducting pooja

and not giving share to other poojaris. On ascertaining the same,

thereafter, for better administration, the accounts authorisation

given to the petitioner was cancelled and authorisation in the name

of one Ayyanar poojari to operate the accounts given. This will not

affect any of the petitioner's rights. He further submitted that

enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner.

4. Considering the submission of materials that the petitioner

was poojari of non-listed temple availing Oru Kaalai Pooja Scheme,

for which, earlier the petitioner was authorized to operate the bank

account and now, Ayyanar Poojari and other poojaris have been

authorised by change of authorisation, it cann