Back
Orders Inquiry Into Unauthorised Sale of 200 Temple Buffaloes by Executive Officer
The has quashed an order freezing a man’s bank account and directed an inquiry into the unauthorised sale of 200 buffaloes donated to the in Salem. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy found the initial order violated , as no notice was given to the affected party, and flagged serious supervisory lapses by the Temple’s Executive Officer.
A Question of Natural Justice
The case arose when V. Durairaj challenged orders dated passed by the Temple’s Executive Officer, which froze his joint bank account and initiated . The orders were linked to an ongoing investigation into the of temple buffaloes.
Durairaj’s counsel, , argued that the authorities had bypassed basic procedural fairness. “The was passed in violation of the , without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard,” he submitted. He pointed out that no or was given before the was issued, even though it directly affected his rights.
The Respondent’s Claim and the Court’s Finding
In response, the ’s Government Advocate, , insisted that a notice had been served on Durairaj before the order was passed. However, upon examining the itself, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted a critical gap: “A perusal of the reveals that it does not contain any reference to the issuance or service of any such notice upon the petitioner.”
This absence was decisive. The court held that passing an without issuing notice or offering a hearing made the order “.” Accordingly, it set aside both the and the consequential bank account freeze, directing the to allow Durairaj to operate his account forthwith.
A Deeper Concern: The Disappearance of 200 Buffaloes
While the was disposed of on procedural grounds, the court delved into the underlying facts and found them alarming. The Government Advocate revealed that the unauthorised sale had generated approximately Rs 83 lakh, implying that over 200 buffaloes had been sold.
Justice Ramasamy did not mince words. “This Court finds that there has been a severe lapse in supervision,” he observed. “While the displacement of one or two buffaloes might go unnoticed, the sale of over 200 buffaloes by the villagers raises serious concerns.” He noted that an Executive Officer is specifically appointed to manage the Temple, and it was that officer’s “primary duty to safeguard the livestock and bring them to public auction in a regular manner.”
The court expressed strong suspicion that the Executive Officer was negligent in allowing the buffaloes to leave the Temple premises, enabling third parties to dispose of them clandestinely. “, the Executive Officer appears to be a key figure accountable for this lapse,” the judgment stated.
Directions for a Thorough Inquiry
Given these observations, the court directed the official respondents—including the Joint Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE—to conduct a detailed and thorough inquiry. The inquiry must cover not only the individuals who sold the buffaloes unlawfully but also the Executive Officer for and failure to discharge .
The judgment also provides a safeguard: if the authorities wish to proceed against Durairaj again, they must issue a proper , grant a reasonable opportunity for a , and pass a fresh order after a detailed enquiry, strictly .
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling underscores the inviolable requirement of natural justice even in administrative actions involving temple property. It also serves as a strong warning to temple officials about their custodial responsibilities. By ordering an inquiry into the Executive Officer’s role, the court has signalled that negligence in managing donated assets will attract serious scrutiny. The now faces the task of unravelling how 200 buffaloes could vanish from a temple under its supervision and fixing accountability.
