Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Kovil Valagam Viyabarigal Sangam v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI and CMP(MD).No.4991 of 2021 Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Kovil Valagam Viyabarigal Sangam, Rep. through its President S.Neelavannan Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sri Subramaniya Samy Temple, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.8001 of 2021, dated 17.04.2021.

Prayer in WP(MD). 8001/ 2021 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of writ, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 11.03.2021 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.654/2021/E2, quash the same, as the same is arbitrary, ultravires, and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 07.12.2020 in consonance with Rule 11 of Religious institution Lease of (Immovable Property) Rules 1963 afresh and grant lease to the members of Arulmigu Sri Subramaniya Samy Kovil Valagam Viyabarigal Sangam on daily / monthly rental basis and may deem fit.

For Appellant : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.Muthu Geethayan 1/4

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.] We have heard Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr.Muthu Geethayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the order and direction issued in W.P(MD).No.8001 of 2021, dated 17.04.2021.

3. The said writ petition was filed by the appellantAssociation to quash the proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 11.03.2021 and to consider the representation given by the writ petitioner, so that the members of the Association can continue to run the shop in the said area.

4. The learned Single Bench rightly took note of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(MD).No.19268 of 2018, and dismissed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"5. It is also relevant to note the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench in W.P.(MD) No.19268 of 2018. In the said order, there is a specific mention to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 09.04.2018. The Division Bench proceeded to pass the following order and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder: "2. Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent, would submit that in view of the fire accident occurred on 03.02.2018, all the existing shops in and around the temple were asked to vacate. Thereafter, a decision was taken to permit them to be in the new places for a period of three years as licensees subject to the conditions, imposed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai, dated 09.04.2018. The above conditions imposed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, would indicate that what is given is only a license and after the expiry of the period of three years, a fresh auction will be conducted.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the grievance of the petitioner stands addressed sufficiently. When the existing licensees were asked to vacate the shops, naturally and 2/4

necessarily, they have to be accommodated.

4. In such view of the matter, the decision of the respondents in granting the period of three years cannot be found fault with, more so, when the same is not challenged. However, on a perusal of the conditions imposed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, we are of the view that the licensees are bound to hand over the vacant possession, after the expiry of period of license, in the event they fail to become successful bidders in the ensuing auction. Therefore, it is made clear that if any construction is made or put up by them, that will not give them any right, after the expiry of period of license. It is further made clear that after the expiry of the period of license, the respondents are bound to bring the shops for fresh public auction and therefore, there cannot be any question of extension of the license as well as the renewal.

6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision taken by the second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2021. The reference made by the petitioner association to Rule 11 of Religious institution Lease of (Immovable Property) Rules 1963 is to be considered by the respondents and a decision more beneficial to the temple must be taken. It is not for the petitioner to decide what will be more beneficial to the temple and that is not the scope of the Rule. The members of the petitioner association are bound by the conditions imposed by the respondents which was also accepted by them and now they cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the same and sing a different song."

5. We find that there is absolutely no ground made out by the appellant to interfere with the impugned order. One more aspect on which the appellant can be nonsuited is that it is the Association, which has came up by way of a writ petition, which is not the licensee, who was granted the temporary accommodation.

6. As mentioned by the learned counsel for the second respondent, individuals were accommodated for a temporary period and that, time has also been over. Therefore, the writ petition filed at the instance of the Association is not maintainable.

7. Thus, for the reasons assigned by the learned Single Bench as well as for the reasons assigned by us, we find no ground to 3/4

interfere with the order passed in the writ petition. Furthermore, we are informed by the learned counsel for the second respondent that individuals also filed the writ petitions and that were also dismissed.

8. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CSIII) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pkn Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To,

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

2. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sri Subramaniya Samy Temple, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

+1 CC to M/s.M.MUTHUGEETHAYAN, Advocate ( SR-19685 [F] dated 21/06/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-19949[F] dated 22/06/2021 ) 18.06.2021 KB(28.06.2021) 4P 5C 4/4