← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3704/2018allowed

The President, v. The Commissioner,

2018-02-22Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Writ Petition (MD) No.3704 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.3846 and 3847 of 2018 The President, Swami Sadasivananda Trust, Sri Kailasa Ashramam, Nerur 639 004 Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

...

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

2.The Executive Officer, Pudukottai Devasthanam, Pudukottai Temples, Pudukottai.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.307/2015/J, dated 01/12/2017 and quash the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with administration of petitioner's trust. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For 1st Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader.

For 2nd Respondent : Mr.G.Mathavan

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 01.12.2017 taking over the petitioner mutt.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has no power to pass the order taking over the mutt and if the Government wants to take over the mutt, the Commissioner should conduct an enquiry under Section 3(2) of the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act') and file a report before the Government and after considering the report, the Government alone has power to issue notification taking over the mutt. In the instant case, the second respondent who has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

no power passed the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not disputing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.Admittedly, as per Section 3(2) of the Act, only the Government has power to take over the mutt, that too, only based on an enquiry conducted by the Commissioner, HR & CE. The Executive Officer, the second respondent herein has no power to pass the impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)Nos.3846 and 3847 of 2018 are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

+1CC to Mr.K.Govindarajan, Advocate, SR.No. 50644 +1CC to Mr.G.Mathavan, Advocate, SR.No. 51040 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.50982 Writ Petition (MD) No.3704 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.3846 and 3847 of 2018 22.02.2018 sms AM/SKN RSK/SAR 4/14.03.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/