R.Arjunan v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.07.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. NO.3054 OF 2014 AND M.P. NOS.1 & 2 OF 2014 R.Arjunan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Villupuram.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Thiruvannamalai.

4.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chengam, Thiruvannamalai.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2192/2013/E1 dated 19.08.2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent and consequential Na.Ka.No.20/2014 dated 25.01.2014 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Government Advocate

O R D E R

Heard Mr.K.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/R3 dated 25.01.2014 appointing a fit person in the Arulmighu Sri Pillayar, Dharmaraja and Mariamman Ammachaar Temples, Kannakurukai Village, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. Though the impugned notice has been challenged on various grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would pursue seriously the argument that the parameters of Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short 'Act') have not been satisfied in this case and there is absolutely no justification set forth for the appointment of the fit person. The order itself, does not cite any instances of mal-administration or mis-management to warrant appointment of the fit person.

4. No counter has been filed in this matter, despite sufficient opportunity having been granted and hence the averments, as aforesaid are taken to be uncontroverted. Though the overall supervision of Temples vests in the State, such temples as are being properly managed by Trustees/Boards/members of the Community, must continue to be so managed without interference of the State. Intervention by the State in management of temples is not automatic and has to be justified citing acceptable reasons such as mis-management/maladministration of the temple/and its assets/properties. Even thereafter notice must be issued to the allegedly delinquent management and only after hearing them must a decision be taken in this matter.

5. That apart, the petitioner states that his father had claimed the status of hereditary trustee, that had been originally rejected. The matter was carried in appeal in A.S. No.885 of and by order dated 20.09.2011, Mr.Justice.A.Arumughaswamy, reversed the original decision holding the petitioner's father to be entitled to the post of hereditary trustee of the temples in question.

6. Though the respondents orally maintained that the above matter in regard to the petitioner's entitlement to hereditary trusteeship had not attained finality and had been carried in appeal, both Mr.Rajarajan and Mr.Arun Natarajan confirm today, after verification of the records and based upon instructions received from the respective parties that order dated 20.09.2011 has indeed attained finality.

7. After passing of the appeal order, the petitioner had sought the handing over of the administration of the temple to him and since the respondents had not responded positively, their inaction came to be challenged in W.P. No.25448 of 2012. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed on 12.06.2012, by

Mr.Justice.N.Paul Vasanthakumar, and paragraphs 2 & 3 of his order state as follows:

'2.When the matter was posted for admission on 17.09.2012, Mr.S.Kandaswamy, learned Special Government (HR & CE), was directed to take notice and get instructions. Today, he submitted that as per the records available, a Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment made in A.S.No.886 of 2006, dated 20.09.2011, during April 2011. However, as on today, no stay has been obtained in the said petiton.

3. In the light of the said undisputed fact, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to handover the Management of the temple to the petitioner, which is the subject matter in O.S. No.167 of 1993, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai, subject to any orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, said to have been filed against judgement made in A.S.No.885 of 2006, dated 20.09.2011. This order has to be complied with, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other impediment and subject to the orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition.

8. The statement of the learned Counsel for the HR & CE Department as recorded at paragraph No.2 above is clearly erroneous, in view of the confirmation of Mr.Arun Natarajan as reported today. In compliance of the direction of this Court in W.P. No.25448 of 2012 dated 12.06.2012, the temple administration was finally handed over to the petitioner. But the success was short lived as, within a period of six months from the handing over, the impugned order has come to be passed appointing a fit person and directing the petitioner to hand back the charge of the temple to him.

9. No interim protection has been granted in this matter, and as such administration, in terms of the impugned order, has been handed over to the fit person. The learned counsel for the petitioner was thus directed to take specific instructions as to whether, seeing as it was the HR & CE Department that has been administering the temple since 2014, the petitioner was interested or in a position to take charge of the temple at this juncture.

10. Mr.Rajarajan today conveys the categoric wishes of the petitioner to the effect that he is willing and, in fact, eager to administer and manage the temple. In light of the discussion as above, the impugned orders are set aside and this writ petition is allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar rkp To

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Villupuram.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Thiruvannamalai.

4. The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chengam, Thiruvannamalai.

+1cc to Mr.K.Rajarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.34243 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.34384 W.P. No.3054 of 2014 PCH(CO) RLP(01/11/2021)