Madras High Court
Rasipuram Nadu Vezhian Kulam vs The Commissioner on 11 July, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.501 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.501 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.542 & 9114 of 2022
Rasipuram Nadu Vezhian Kulam
Nattu Velalar Sri Pathirakali Amman
(Athanur Amman) Athayee Amman
Thirukoil Arakattalai Rep., by its
President P.K.Loganathan alias
Ulaganathaswamy,
S/o.Kulanthivelu Gounder
No.51/5 Chithralayam, Andakalur Gate,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Administrative Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Administrative Department,
Erode,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
W.P.No.501 of 2022
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Athanooramman Temple,
Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
4.P.Palanivelu
5.Aru.Venkatachalam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the order dated 11.04.2021 made in RC No.25358/2018/Q3 on the file of the
Commissioner (HR&CE), the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to put up constructions in the temple
considering their representation dated 03.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner
in turn with agamas and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate for RR1to R3
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the Commissioner, first respondent, dated 11.04.2021 and consequently direct ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 8 W.P.No.501 of 2022 the respondents to put up constructions in the temple considering their representation dated 03.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner in tune with agamas and pass such further orders.
2. It appears to be third round of litigation in respect of the temple name 'Arulmighu Athanoor Amman Thirukovil'. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the temple falls within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”) and is governed under Rule 10 of the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules framed under the provisions of the HR & CE Act. It is submitted that in 2010 a plan was approved for constructing a fresh temple as old temple was in a dilapidated condition. It is further submitted that in deviation of the approved plan, a decision was taken in 2016 for constructing the temple. One of the devotees filed W.P.No.8317 of 2019, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2019. It is further submitted that the construction is now in complete deviation of the approval granted in 2010, 2016 and in 2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner had therefore approached vide W.P.No.166 of 2021 and the said Writ Petition is pending. However, there ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 8 W.P.No.501 of 2022 was an interim order passed on 05.02.2021, which has not been culminated by the respondent Commissioner.
3. The challenge to the impugned order dated 11.04.2021 is primarily on the ground that the construction made is incomplete violation of the Rule 10 of the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules. It is therefore submitted that the respondents should be directed to redo the construction as per the original plan that was approved by the members of the community and in consultation with Theekshathar and Sthapathi. It is further submitted that the subsequent development/constructions based on the revision made by consulting a Theekshathar of the another temple was unwarranted and therefore prayed for appropriate relief by quashing the impugned order and consequential directions.
4. Opposing the prayer, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the temple is not confined to a particular community. It is a public temple. It is further submitted that the temple has already been constructed and only painting works remains to be completed ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 8 W.P.No.501 of 2022 and the Kumbhabishekam is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022. It is therefore submitted that the Writ Petition filed earlier in W.P.No.166 of 2021 itself was belated and the challenge to the impugned order of the first respondent Commissioner, dated 11.04.2021 cannot be countenanced. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6. The only issue for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether there is any deviation in following the agamas in the construction of the temple by the respondents or not. It cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The facts on record indicate that there was an approved plan in 2010 which was subsequently revised in 2016 and further revision was made in 2019 and the construction appears to have been completed and only painting ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 8 W.P.No.501 of 2022 works remains to be completed and that the Kumbhabisekham is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022. Therefore, I do not wish to interfere with the proposed Kumbhahisekham, which is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022, as construction is complete. That apart, the earlier Writ Petition filed by one of the devotees in W.P.No.8317 of 2019 also indicated that the second respondent therein was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner therein. It was not open to the petitioner who has approached this Court by way of second Writ Petition representing a section of the society belonging to a particular community to stop the Kumbhabisekham, which is proposed to be held on 12.09.2022. Further the construction is completed even as per the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit to challenge to the impugned order of the respondent Commissioner. At the same time, I leave it open for the petitioner to approach the Government under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, who in turn shall consider the case of the petitioner preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the proposed application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 and in case the issue is considered in favour of the petitioner, appropriate directions may be issued based on the available records.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 8 W.P.No.501 of 2022
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above liberty. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.07.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order pbn To
1.The Commissioner.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administrative Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administrative Department, Erode,
3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Athanooramman Temple, Athanoor, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 8 W.P.No.501 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.
pbn W.P.No.501 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.542 & 9114 of 2022 11.07.2022 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 8