Madras High Court
K.K.C.Singarachariyar Swamy … vs The Commissioner on 20 May, 2021
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.05.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
& M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2012
W.P.No.25562 of 2013:
K.K.C.Singarachariyar Swamy …. Petitioner
Vs
1 The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 34.
2 The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Vellore.
3 The Executive Officer,
Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam,
Sholinghur – 631 102, Vellore District. …. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consult the
petitioner in all religious and secular matters pertaining to Sri Lakshmi
Narasimhar Swamy Temple Sholinghur in the capacity as
Dharmasandekanivarthi of the temple as has been done earlier.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1
W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
W.P.No.6715 of 2012:
K.K.C.Elayazhwar alias Rajaswamy …. Petitioner
Vs
1 The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Vellore.
2 The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Lakshmi Narayanaswamy Temple,
Sholinghur – 631 102. …. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in Nada Na.Ka.No.1613/ 2011/B2 dated 19.2.2012 on the file
of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary against principles
of natural justice and ultra vires.
For Petitioner in both W.Ps : Ms.S.Vijayalakshmi
For Respondents in both W.Ps : Mr. R.Venkatesh
Government Advocate – R1
Mr.A.K.Sriram
For M/s.Kailasam Associates – R2
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed by brothers, K.K.C.Singarachariyar Swamy, petitioner in W.P.No.25562 of 2013, and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 K.K.C.Elayazhwar @ Rajaswamy, petitioner in W.P.No.6715 of 2012. The father of the petitioners is one K.K.C.Periyappangar Swamy, who claims to be a descendant of Kovil Kandadai Chandamarudham (KKC) Sri Doddacharya Swami.
2. The prayer in W.P.No.25562 of 2013 is for an omnibus direction to the respondents, being Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR & CE Department)/R1 and R2 respectively and the Executive Officer/R3 of the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam/Temple, to consult the petitioner in all religious and secular matters pertaining to Sri Lakshmi Narasimhar Swamy Temple Sholinghur, in the capacity as Dharmasandekanivarthi of the temple.
3. The prayer in W.P.No.6715 of 2012 is to call for and quash order dated 19.02.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department/R1 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in an application filed before R1 to treat him as a hereditary trustee. The Executive Officer of the temple is arrayed as R2.
4. The Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Sholingar is a revered and ancient temple, a Vaishnavite Divyadesam, one among the 108 Divyadesams, dedicated to Lord Lakshmi Narasimhaswami. It was originally called Thirukkadigai or Kadigachalam as Lord Narasimhar is believed to have given https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 darshan to the Saptha Rishis for a span of forty-five minutes, kadigai connoting duration of 45 minutes. There are three temples, one in the plains, dedicated to Bhakthositha Swamy, the second in the big hill, dedicated to Lord Narasimha and the third in the smaller hill, dedicated to Lord Yoga Anjaneya.
5. All three temples come within the control of the Devasthanam of Sri Swami Dhodachariya, a descendent and disciple of Sri Ramanujar. The petitioners claim lineage from Kovil Kandadai Chandamarudham Doddacharya Swami and state that members of their family have been recognised as Mudal Theerthakarara /Dharmasandehivarthi /Karuvoolam /Mirsdhars/ Hereditary Trustees of the temple. They are thus entitled to due honours and must be consulted in all religious and other matters relating to the temple.
6. A scheme dated 05.08.1944 was framed in O.A.No.411 of 1942 by the Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Endowments Board. The scheme provides for various aspects of the management of the temple and since we are concerned with the appointment of trustees in this matter as well as the functions they perform, I extract the whole of the Scheme, though acutely conscious of the length:
PARTICULARS OF SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSION FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 PRESENT: THIRU SRI RAO BAHADUR C M RAMCAHNDRA CHETTIAR, B.A. B.L, SRI A S M NAYAR ESQUIRE B.A. B.L., Bar – at – law COMMISSIONERS OA NO.411 of 1942 In the matter of Arulmigu Lakshmi Narasimhawamy Temple, Sholinghur Taluk, North Arcot District, Proceedings under section 63 (3) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927) for the modification of the scheme settled in Board’s order No.503 B dated 26.02.1936.
BOARD’S ORDER NO 3189 DATED 05.08.1944 This case having come on for final hearing on 03.07.1944 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Board after considering all the materials placed before it, passed the following:-
ORDER WHEREAS the Board is satisfied that in the interest of the proper administration of Arulmigu Lakshmi Narasimhawamy Temple, Sholigur Taluk, Nort Arcot District, the scheme settled by the Board in its order No.503 B dated 26.02.1936 should be modified. The board after consulting the trustees of the temple and other persons having interest therein does hereby modified the scheme under Section 63(3) of Madras Act II of 1927 the scheme of Administration settled for the temple and its Endowments in Board’s Order No.503 B dated 26.02.1936.
MODIFICATION (1) The management of Arulmigu Lakshmi Narasimhawamy Temple, Sholigur Taluk, Nort Arcot District and its endowments together with all the Sub temples and Shrines attached thereto, shall from the date of this order regulated by the provisions hereunder.
(2) The administration of the temple and affairs of the endowments attached to the temple and its sub temples shall be conducted by the hereditary trustee and any other non-hereditary trustees not exceeding three in number as may be determined by the Board from time to time, and an Executive Officer to be appointed by the Board.
(3) The Board shall appoint and Executive Office to be in charge of the day to day affairs of the institution and their endowments. The salary and other conditions of office of the Executive Officer, shall be regulated by the Board’s order No.2001 of 1942 and any modifications made thereto by the Board or by any other competent authority from time to time.
(4) The present non-hereditary trustee and the Executive Office shall be deemed to vacate their office from the date on which this amended scheme comes into force. But they shall, if found fit and qualified be eligible for re- appointment.
5) The non-hereditary trustees shall be appointed by the Board and may hold office for a period of five years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
6) In the event of the Board appointing more than one non-hereditary trustee, the trustee shall be at the beginning of each Fasli meet and elect one from among themselves as Managing Trustee. The Managing Trustee shall function for one year or until such time as may elapse until a fresh managing trustee is elected. If there is only one non-hereditary trustee for the temple the hereditary trustee shall perform all functions of a Managing trustee hereinafter mentioned. If for any reason the hereditary trustee fails to act as Managing trustee or expresses is disinclination to be managing trustee, the non-hereditary trustee or expresses his disinclination to be managing trustee, the non- hereditary trustee shall perform all the functions of the Managing trustee hereinafter mentioned.
7) The trustee shall meet once in every month and after if necessary, prefers by 2nd Sunday in the temple premises to discuss all matters relating to the administration of the temple and to transact the temple business. Due notice of such meetings together with the agenda shall be circulated to all the trustees by the Executive Officer at least one week prior to the date fixed for meeting. The sending of notice and agenda by ordinary post to the permanent address of the trustees shall be deemed sufficient compliance with this clause special meetings may be held on any other day at the instance of the Executive Officer of the Managing Trustee in case of urgent business. The Hereditary Trustee if present shall preside at all such meetings of the trustees. In case he is absent, any trustee chosed by those present may preside.
8) The Executive Officer shall keep a correct record of the proceedings of such meeting which shall be signed by all the trustees present and shall be kept in the temple office in the custody of the Executive Officer and shall be open for inspection by any number of the Board’s service. A copy of the proceedings shall be sent to the Board and to the Board’s Local Officer in whose jurisdiction the temple is situated.
9) If for any reason the trustees are unable to meet in any month, the Executive Office shall make a note to the effect in the minutes book and state the reason why the meeting did not take place.
10) If a non-hereditary fails to attend three consecutive meetings he could be deemed to have vacated his office. The trustee may however, in a fit and proper case condone his absence and restore him to his office.
11) The Trustees at their meetings shall consider the following subjects:-
a) Accounts kept by the Executive Officer,
b) Lease granted by the Executive Officer,
c) Budgets, d) Dittam,
e) Statements of additions and alterations under section 30 of the Act,
g) Audit reports- Objections and replies thereto.
12) The Executive Officer shall ordinarily reside at Sholinghur at through the year. He shall (a) be in charge of the temple office (b) be responsible for the maintenance of repair and proper accounts, (c) attend the collection of rents and other income due to the temple, (d) supervise the work of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 the temple servants and (e) see to the proper conduct of the daily worship, sevas and festivals of the temple.
13) If for any reason the Executive Officer finds it necessary to be absent from Sholinghur, he shall before leaving give due intimation to the Board and the Managing Trustee, setting out the reasons for his being obliged to leave the station and the arrangements he proposed to make for the administration of the temple during his absence.
14) If the Executive office finds it necessary to travel outside Sholinghur on the temple business, he will be entitled to draw his travelling allowance from the funds of the temple in accordance with the Madras Travelling Allowance Rules. The money for the travelling allowance bills have been duly scrutinized and passed by the Board.
15) The Executive office shall be entitled to correspond directly with the Board on urgent and necessary matters. Copy of such correspondence together with the replies of the Board, if any shall be placed before the Trustees at their meeting.
16) The Executive Office is the person who is prima is responsible for taking proper case of the buildings, jewels and vessels, etc belonging to the temple. In respect of the jewels now in custody of the 1st Theerthankar the system of double lock should be introduced and the 1st Theethankar and the Executive office shall each have a key.
17) The Executive Officer shall on behalf of the temple receive all income and make all disbursements.
18) The Executive Office shall before the 30th of May every year forward to the Board a budget in the form prescribed by the Board in Memorandum No.6010 dated 27th October 1925, giving the probable receipts and expenditure of the temple and all the endowments connected therewith, during the following fasli. No money in excess of the sanctioned or allotted amount should be spent by the Executive officer, except at his own personal risk.
19) A register of sevas and offerings to the deity should be maintained and kept in the temple office. It is the duty of the Executive Officer to see that the offerings to the deity or sevas are property conducted in accordance with namool practices. Every person who pays for seva other offerings in cash or remits the necessary money by money order should be granted a receipt for such payment.
20) The Trustees shall as soon as possible fix a scale of the facts to be levied for each Seva. The Seva shall as far as possible be in conformity with the existing practice in the temple. The scale of fee so fixed shall after approval by the board be published in the notice board of the temple, which should be kept in a conspicuous part of the temple premises.
21) The Executive Office shall within two months after the coming into force of this amended scheme decide as to the number of subordinates he would like to have to assist him in the management of the temple affairs, and report to the Board. The Board may after receiving the report sanction such establishment as may be necessary for the temple such establishment sanctioned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 by the Board shall neither be increased nor reduced by the Executive Officer without obtaining the previous specific sanction of the Board. This will not affect the right and privilege of the hereditary mirasi office holdrs.
22) In the case of a temple servant for whose service a grant or land has been made formerly the holder should not ordinarily be given any other remuneration by the temple.
23) The executive Officer shall in consultation with the trustees and within a reasonable time after he begins to function, define the relative position between the different employment in the temple and lay down clearly the duties and responsibilities of such employees. In doing so, the existing practice may be taken as a guide but it need not be slavishly adhered to.
24) The Executive officer shall have disciplinary control over the temple servants. His orders in this regard shall be subject to confirmation of the trustees.
25) The Executive Officer shall represent the temple in all civil, criminal and revenue proceedings. No suit shall be filed by the Executive Officer on behalf of the temple without obtaining the previous sanction of the Board, except in case of emergency such as fear or bar by limitation immediate report shall in such cases be made to the Board and the trustees.
26) The Executive Office shall not without Board’s sanction have in his custody more than Rs.150/- at any time and all amounts over and above the said sum shall be lodged or deposited in such places as may be directed by the Board or its officers.
27) The Executive Officer shall subject to the right of the hereditary Mirasi office holders as set out in the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No.1024/1937 to receive offerings in case made by the pilgrims up the hill not intended as a substitute for any offering in kind or kinds or ear marked for the purposes of making any jewels vessels or other articles intended for the use of the deity make necessary arrangements to receive all Kanikais ordered by the votaries. They shall be entered into a separate book to be maintained for the purpose offerings in kind as well as jewels or ingots or cash offered shall be entered in the above mentioned note book.
28) Offerings of a non-perishable nature in gold and silver precious stones shall on no account be sold or otherwise disposed off by the Executive Officer of the Trustee without obtaining the specific sanction of the Board.
29) Subject to the right of the mirasi office holders as set out in the Judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No.1024 of 1927, it is the duty of the Executive Officer to see that some of the Devasthanam employees including the Archakas and their subordinates accept any Kanikais on behalf of the temple from the devotees.
30) Leasing of all the temple lands shall if directed by the trustee be done only by public auction and after giving due publicity. All leases of lands as building sites for building purposes should be done only after obtaining the previous sanction of the Board. But leases of lands for temporary occupation in connection with fairs, festivals, etc may be given by public auction after giving https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 information to the Board. All leases whether for agricultural purposes or not, whether with a time limit or without it, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
a) The lease shall not without the Board’s sanction do anything in respect of the land which would give rise to a claim for compensation.
b) The lessee shall not alienate the lease without obtaining the previous sanction of the Executive Officer.
c) The lessee shall not transfer any of the rights under the lease without obtaining the previous sanction of the Executive Officer.
d) During the pendency of the lease the lessee shall not determine the lease on their own account.
e) It shall be competent to the Board of the Executive Officer to cancel the lease either on the determination of the lease without notice of may at any time after three months notice if the land is required for the Government Devasthanam or other public purposes.
31) The Executive Officer shall whenever possible within fifteen days or the grant of the lease shall call upon the lessee to deposit a reasonable amount as security for the proper conduct of the lease. Any lessee aggrieved by any order of the executive Officer may appeal to the Board.
32) No lease shall be granted in favour of the Trustees, Executive Officer or any of their relation without their sanction of the Board.
33) The Board may from time to time issue orders for the carrying out at the provision of this amended scheme and for safeguarding the interests of the temple.
34) Same in so far as is expressly provident herein the provisions of the Madras Act II of 1927 and the Rules and Byelaws framed there under shall apply to the temple.
// Forwared /By order Sd/-A.Balakrishnan, Secretary Sd/-V.S Row Deputy Secretary.
7. To summarize, the administration of the temple and connected endowments were to be attended to by the hereditary and non-hereditary trustees, the latter not exceeding three in number as may be determined by the Board from time to time. In addition, an Executive Officer was to be appointed by the Board to assist in matters of administration and management. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
8. Justice M.M.Sundresh, in his order dated 30.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.6765 of 2002 filed by K.K.C.Periyappangarswamy and seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for and quash of Notification dated 11.02.2002 issued by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Vellore and for a direction to the respondents to follow the provisions of the scheme in O.A.No.411/42 dated 05.08.1944 in the matter of appointment of non- hereditary trustees to the temple in Sholingur, refers to the Scheme of management at paragraph 2 of that order.
9. A reading of impugned order dated 19.02.2021 makes it clear that there have been no trustees, hereditary or otherwise, and as envisaged by the Scheme, from 1954 onwards. From 1931 to 1944, 1944 to 1951 and 1951 to 1954, the management vested in a committee comprising of three persons. From 1954, the management vested in a sole individual, who functioned under the exalted title of ‘Managing Committee’ till 1988, when the practice of appointing a Fit Person/Thakkar came into vogue. The management of the temple and its assets vests in entirety, in a single person.
10. As on date, I am told that the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Department, Vellore is presently rendering duties as Fit Person of this ancient, and asset-rich temple and its vast properties in addition to the administrative, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 statutory duties that he is expected to carry out. I shudder to think of the burden and onerous responsibility that befalls him. It is time one took stock of a proper mechanism to oversee the management of the temple and its properties. More on my views in this regard as well as directions are contained from paragraph 27 onwards.
11. The father of the petitioners is seen to have engaged in extensive litigation with the temple, and there has been an on-going tussle between the temple and him in regard to the honours that he believed were due to him as well as the extent of control that he wished to be allowed to wield as far as secular as well as non-secular management of the temple is concerned.
12. The requests of the petitioner in W.P.No.6715 of 2012 came to be considered by the Commissioner and after hearing the parties including both petitioners before me now, orders were passed on 06.05.2019, the temple listing out those matters where the petitioners would be allowed to participate. The translation of the relevant portion of the order aforesaid is extracted below:
‘ The brief points laid out by the Petitioner in his Representation dated 20.08.2007 are as follows:
A) The offerings donated i.e. Gold, Silver etc by Pilgrims, Public and Donors are to be secured by Double Lock System with the Treasury in conformity to Section of 42 of H.R. & C.E. Act.
B) A Religious Committee to be constituted to ensure that donations neither cash nor valuables are received by unauthorized People from donor/public on behalf of the temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 C) The Customary Honours i.e. Kattiyam Samabhavanai and Paditharam should be conducted as per the old customs and practice to be extended to honour eligible individuals, who perform Kaingariyam service for the temple.
5. Petitioners Counsel notice dated 29.07.2007 states as follows:
A) The plan for Constructing Second Entrance in the Sannidhi Praharam at the Sholingar Periya Temple is against the Aagama rules and also in view of the safety hazards involved, the plan has to be dropped.
B) Prior Notice to be issued and obtain opinion from the petitioner, before executing any plan in the Temple.
The following Orders are passed after carefully perusing the petitioner’s above request.
A) The Offerings donated i.e. Gold, Silver etc by Pilgrims, Public and Donors are to be secured by Double Lock System with Treasury in consonance to Section of 45 of HR & CE Act. According to the HR & CE Rules (the installation, safe guarding and Accounting of Hundials Rules, 1975), on the day of Hundial opening all the valuables will be evaluated by a valuer, since it is protected by Double Lock system. Moreover, as per temple’s scehme framed in O.A. No.411/1942, one of the Karuvoolam’s Key to be in possession with the First Theethangarar and the other key to be with the Executive Officer. The Executive officer/Assistant Commissioner will give prior intimation to First Theethangarar, whever ther is opening of Hundials.
B) The petitioner has requested to constitute Religious Committee to ensure that donations and offerings are not received by unauthorized People on behalf of the temple. In accordance to the request, the Government has already issued G.O. in (T) No.596 Tamil Valarchi in Religious and News. (A.N.01) dated 06.10.2009 for constituting a committee to conduct Kuda Mulukku and other Religious works and duties. In view of the above G.O. the necessity to issue any order does not arise.
C) The Customary Honours i.e. Kattiyam, Samabavanai and Padiyam are conducted as per the ole rituals and is given only to the first Thirghangarar. The eligible individuals who perform kaingariyam functions in the temple are given Paditharam. Since the Petitioner is performing Kaingariya function, he cannot receive Kattiyam and Samabavanai. Further the petitioner Mr.K.K.C.Rajaswamy agreed to given consent to for his brother Mr.K.K.C.Singarachariyar Swamy to receive all honors by a letter dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 04.03.2008, since the petitioner is doing the Kaingariya Works, the temple is not in the position to handover the honors to the petitioner. Moreover with recognized plan and without any change the temple Kattiyam, sambhavani, and paditahram is being given to rightful person and hence the petitioners request with respect to this issue is denied.
D) The second entrance inside the sanadhi pragaram at the Sholigar Big Mountain is constructed as per the Aagama Rules, Stabathi’s Advice and by the Order of the Joint Commissioner, Vellore. The petitioner has not submitted any supporting documents at the time of enquiry to prove that the Second Entrance was constructed against the Aagama Rules. The petitioner herein being a person of interest and keeping the safety of the temple in the mind it has been decided to permit access through the second entrance only during times of urgency after ensuring all safety measures are taken and the same has been advised to the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer.
E) Further on considering the age and experience of the seniors who perform Kaingariya works, the Aagama Rules, Customs, Advices and opinions are being heard and implemented without leaving any room for criticism in the Temple Administration till date. Since there is nothing as per administration scheme which mandates petitioner’s opinion to be heard before conducting any rituals or function in the temple and henceforth this request cannot be accepted.’
13. The above order has attained finality and has been referred to by Justice C.V.Karthikeyan in his order passed in W.P.No.32928 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020 filed by K.K.C.Singarachariyar seeking a mandamus directing the Executive Officer to strictly implement the directions of the first respondent dated 06.05.2019. The directions sought for specifically touch upon the double lock system as far as hundials and the opening of the hill entry to the temple are concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture, would allege that despite a specific direction being obtained in that Writ Petition, there is no compliance of the same and the hundials have been opened several times as has been the Hill entry, in contempt of this Court’s directions. A contempt petition is stated to have been filed and is pending before the Court. That is a matter to be pursued by the petitioners separately.
15. As far as the omnibus direction sought in W.P.No.25562 of 2013, it cannot be granted in the light of both the petitioners having accepted the directions of the Commissioner in order dated 06.05.2019. The honours as well as the extent of the consultation qua the petitioners and the temple will be restricted to the ambit of the Commissioner’s order only.
16. As to the claim of K.K.C.Singarachariar Swamy to the post of hereditary trustee, such claim may be considered only if his father had held that post during his lifetime, in line with the definition of ‘hereditary trustee’ under Section 6 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In this context, my attention is drawn to several orders passed by this Court in a series of writ petitions filed by Periyappangar Swamy.
17. The petitioner’s father has been highly litigious over the years, repeatedly challenging the actions of the temple administration before this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 Court. Perhaps he was forced to resort to such tactics by virtue of the respondents not having considered his claim of hereditary trusteeship in line with the specific stipulation in the Scheme which provided for the appointment of a hereditary trustee and his lineage.
18. There are conflicting orders in this regard, some of which have proceeded on the basis that Periyappangar Swamy was holding the said post and others that are categorical to the opposite effect. Justice K.Govindarajan in W.P.No.13916 of 2000 dated 17.08.2000, considered a challenge by K.K.C.Periyappangar Swamy to a call for applications for the post of non- hereditary trustees by the Joint Commissioner. While allowing that Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner’s objection to the show cause notice was still pending, learned Judge set aside the call for applications stating that the same may be revived if it is ‘ultimately concluded that the petitioner has to be removed from hereditary trusteeship.’
19. Justice Bakthavatsalam, in W.P.No.17452 of 1990, by order dated 13.11.1990 also considered a similar challenge as in the above writ petition concluding that ‘it is open to the second respondent to give notice to the petitioner before appointing the non-hereditary trustees. It is also open to the second respondent to take note of the fact that the scheme was framed not at the instance of the petitioner or his predecessors.’ Both the aforesaid orders https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 refer to the Scheme and the appointment of hereditary and non-hereditary trustees under the scheme and are relied upon by the petitioners to state that Periyappangar Swamy was holding the position of hereditary trusteeship and thus the same post would be available to his sons as well.
20. Per contra, Mr.Sriram would refer to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE in O.A.No.59 of 1965 dated 08.04.1971 rejecting the application of K.K.C.Vedanthachariar and K.K.C.Periappaiengar for appointment to the post of hereditary trustees wherein the Deputy Commissioner says that the petitioners may apply to the post of non-hereditary trustees as and when vacancies arise. According to the Executive Officer, there is no question of Periappaiengar having held the post of hereditary trustee at any point in time.
21. In W.P.No.17100 of 1991 filed by K.K.C.Periyappa Iyengar, Justice Y.Venkatachalam, by order dated 25.11.1997, considered a challenge to an order dated 21.11.1991, wherein an application of that petitioner for appointment as hereditary trustee had come to be dismissed, reiterating that he had never been a hereditary trustee of the temple and thus the question of consulting him on matters pertaining to the administration of the temple did not arise. Thus the learned single Judge concludes that the petitioner had not proved his claim that he was ever a hereditary trustee of the temple. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
22. All the aforesaid orders are stated to have attained finality. The overwhelming position thus appears to be that Periyappangar Swamy has never assumed the position of hereditary trustee in the temple and thus the question of the petitioners before me being entitled to that position does not arise. No doubt there are other orders where this Court has proceeded on the basis that he did hold the position but such references are only incidental.
23. This very issue has been deliberated upon by the Deputy Commissioner in his dated 08.04.1971 rejecting the claim of Periyappangar Swamy to hereditary trusteeship and this order does not ever appear to have been brought to the Court’s notice thus far. The aforesaid order reads thus:
‘The petition be and is hereby dismissed. The petitioners may apply for non-hereditary Trusteeship, when vacancies arise and their applications may be considered for non-hereditary trusteeship sympathetically, if he is not disqualified under the provisions of the Act.’
24. That apart, the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, vide order dated 02.06.2005 has discussed various issues raised by Periyappangar Swamy including his request for hereditary trusteeship and has rejected the same as follows:
??????-34, ????? ??? ??????? ???????????, ??????????
????????? ????????????.
????????: ???? ?.??????????, ?.?.?., - ???????? ????????? ?.?.???: 8059/2005/?1 ????:02.06.‘05 . . .
???:
. . .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 ??????? ????????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ????????????????????:-
…………..
(10) ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ?????? 1959 ??????
63(??) ???????? ????, ?????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????????????????? ????????, ‘???????? ????????? ?????‘ ?????? 35 ??????? 36 ????????? ??????? ??????????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??????? ??????.
(11) ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ????? , ???????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ??????? ???????????, ??????? 28.07.2004 ????????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ????????????? ????? ???????????????????.
(???) ?.??????????
????????
/????? ???? – ??????????/ ??????????????
25. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above orders have been challenged and set aside in appeal. In the light of the aforesaid orders, there is no merit in the claim of of K.K.C.Elayazhwar @ Rajaswamy for hereditary trusteeship. W.P.No.6715 of 2012 stands dismissed. In line with the Scheme, the petitioner may make an application for non- hereditary trusteeship and such application, if and when filed, shall be considered by the concerned authority and disposed after hearing the petitioner, with four (4) weeks from date of filing of the application, in accordance with the Scheme and relevant provisions of law, as applicable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012
26. W.P.No.25562 of 2013 stands disposed in the light of the order passed by the Commissioner on 06.05.2019. The respondents are bound by the directions of the Commissioner and shall strictly abide by the same in letter and spirit. No costs in either writ petition, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions in both are closed.
27. I now continue with the discussion from paragraph 10 above. I am of the view that a Temple of such antiquity, magnificent and hoary traditions and rich assets, movable and immovable must be under the care and supervision of a Board comprising competent persons, assisted in administration by officials of the HR&CE Department. The Scheme, in fact, lays down precisely this. The provision for the hereditary trustee and three non-hereditary trustees has been put in place bearing in mind the range of functions to be performed by them. There is simply no justification for the respondent to have varied this procedure. At the very least, the procedure for a sole trustee aided by an Executive Officer might have been followed. This has also not been done. There are instances of other temples in Tamil Nadu whose administration is overseen by eminent and competent persons drawn from society with support and assistance from and by the HR&CE Department, the Meenakshi Amman Thirukoil in Madurai and the Kapaleeshwarar Temple in Chennai to name a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 couple. In summation, there is a direction for constitution of the Board of Trustees as set out under the Scheme forthwith, or a sole trustee as was the practice in vogue for a while in the past to function along with the assistance of the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the Department.
28. I had directed the parties to file audited accounts of the temple as well as statutory audit reports for the last five financial years and some details have been filed. The purpose of seeking the aforesaid documents is only to understand the manner of deployment of funds, seeing as the entirety of the temple management vests in a single official, the Joint Commissioner, who also discharges official and statutory functions. In the matter of religious institutions, Courts assume the position of parens patriae, and a responsibility is cast upon the Court to ensure that the interests of the deity are secure.
29. The accounts for Fasli 1427 and 1428, i.e., 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and 01.07.2018 to 30.06.2019, reveal excess of income over expenditure of amounts of Rs.11,59,75,801.21 and Rs.11,91,05,776.26 respectively. In the absence of complete details the deployment of the excess income is unknown. In a temple of this magnitude where the cash reserves as well as movable and immovable property resources are substantial, it would be too much to expect a single officer to secure, maintain and grow the institution, quite apart from such https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 management being contrary to the Scheme. This is certainly not in the best interests of the institution and must not, in my view, be permitted to continue, as it were.
30. To reiterate, the Commissioner/R1 will constitute the Board as envisaged in the Scheme for administration of the temple, comprising persons of integrity and eminence, or a sole trustee who will spearhead the activities of the temple, both temporal and otherwise, and oversee the administration and management, assisted by the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer.
31. To report progress/compliance, list after three (3) weeks from date of uploading of this order.
20.05.2021 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Sl To 1 The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 34.
2 The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21 W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
Sl 3 The Executive Officer, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Sholinghur – 631 102, Vellore District.
W.P. Nos.25562 of 2013 and 6715 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2012 20.05.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22