Pandi Durai v. The Joint Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and WMP(MD)No.19162 of 2022 Pandidurai ... Petitioner -vs1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai.
2.Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple Devasthanam, Represented by its present trustees, Pillayarpatty, Sivagangai District.
3.Pillaiyarpatti Karpagavinayagar Nagarathar Trust, Represented by its present trustees, Pillaiyarpatti, Sivagangai District.
4.L.Chokkalingam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to reject the nomination of the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent as one of the trustees to the 2nd respondent temple and consequently directing the 1st respondent to appoint any other Good honest person as Trustee of the 2nd respondent temple based on its scheme .
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anantha Padmanabhan for M/s.APN Law Associates For Respondent No.1 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE] Mr.Pandidurai, son of S.KR.Durairaj, a staunch devotee and claiming to be a native resident of Velangudi Village, showing interest on the famous temple namely, Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple, Pillayarpatty, has filed this writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the 1st respondent to reject the nomination of the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent as one of the trustees to the 2nd
respondent temple, with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to appoint any other good honest person as Trustee of the 2nd respondent temple based on its scheme.
2.
Mr.N.Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No. 74/1978, 16 families are eligible to administer the 2nd respondent temple through the 4th respondent Trust. Each year two families are jointly managing together based on the schedule given in the scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.74/1978. The 3rd respondent is a Trust which is a recommending body of the 2nd respondent Temple Devasthanam. While so, one of the trustees of the 2nd respondent temple namely, L.Chokkalingam, 4th respondent herein, has suffered a disqualification, because, he has been found guilty by an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in STC.No.271/2016 dated 01.08.2018, for the reason that he failed to repay the loan amount to the complainant/Palaniappan. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said amount also has been paid and the offence has been compounded, but the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2018 passed against the 4th
respondent in STC.No.271/2016 dated 01.08.2018 clearly shows that the 4th respondent is not given clean chit and he has suffered a disqualification, because, he has been found guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, on that count, the 4th respondent is not entitled to continue as one of the trustees of the 2nd respondent Temple Devasthanam. Again, the 4th respondent has also given room for facing two other criminal cases in STC.No.1673/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi, and STC.No.339/2022 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, (Cheque Cases), Madurai, and the same are pending. Therefore, when the 4th respondent has been facing the aforesaid criminal cases, his continuance in the 2nd respondent Devasthanam as a trustee will not be in the interest of the temple. Therefore, he should be removed from the post of trustee, he pleaded. 3.
Referring to Section 26(1)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, he contended that when the above provision says that a proposed trustee should not have acted adverse to the interest of the religious institution, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in STC.No.271/2016 dated 01.08.2018 clearly depicts the conduct of
the 4th respondent and therefore, he should not be allowed to continue as trustee of the 2nd respondent temple. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, he pleaded.
4.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5.
We do not find any justification in the writ petition filed by Pandidurai. Firstly, when Mr.Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing our notice to an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, in STC.No.271/2016 dated 01.08.2018, argued before us that one of the trustees of the 2nd respondent temple namely, the 4th respondent has suffered a disqualification, we are unable to espouse the said argument. The reason is, in the arguments advanced by Mr.Anantha Padmanabhan, he has clearly stated that the 4th respondent has compounded the offence by paying the entire cheque amount. Therefore, the said complaint cannot be pressed against the 4th respondent. When frivolous complaints are filed against the 4th respondent, without the finality and the result of such complaints, it is too far to say that the 4th respondent is found guilty. Therefore, on merits, we find no justification in the writ petition.
6.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [T.R., A.C.J.] [R.M.D., J.] 04.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No bala/smn2 To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai.
2.The present trustees, Arulmigu Karpaga Vinayagar Temple Devasthanam, Pillayarpatty, Sivagangai District.
3.The present trustees, Pillaiyarpatti Karpagavinayagar Nagarathar Trust, Pillaiyarpatti, Sivagangai District.
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and R.MAHADEVAN , J.
bala/smn2 and WMP(MD)No.19162 of 2022 04.11.2022