Madras High Court
T.Sampathkumar vs The Principal Secretary/Commissioner on 26 October, 2018
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.10.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.9209 of 2009
1. T.SampathKumar
2. T.Jayasekar
3. T.Parthasarathy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Administration Department,
Nungampakkam, Chennai - 34.
2. The Executive Officer/Thakkar
A/m. Ekambareswarar Thirukovil,
Thanga Salai Street, Chennai.
3. Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam
Rep. by N.C.Sridhar, Managing Trustee,
Board of Trust, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
(R3 impleaded as per order dated 01.12.2009
passed in M.P.No.3 of 20009) ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to
the impugned order dated 29.04.2009 made in
Na.Ka.No.54312/2008/A1 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the
same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Srikanth
For Mr.Govardhan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja
Special Government Pleader
For R1
Mr.P.B.SampathKumar
For R2
Mrs.Srividhya Aravindan
For R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.54312/2008/A1 dated 29.04.2009 and to quash the same.
2. The petitioners herein, are the presidents of, the turn managers of and the trustees of T.V.R.Subbi Chetty's Family Charities. In pursuant to the scheme dated 13.10.1941 passed by this Court in C.S.No.85 of 1939, a Committee of Management was formed among the four sons of Thiru.T.V.R.Subbi Chetty, namely, T.Ramasamy Chetty, T.Varadarajulu Chetty, T.Nagaiah Chetty and T.Raghavaiah Chetty, for the purpose of management of the said charities. Subsequently, the said scheme was amended by an order of this Court http://www.judis.nic.in 3 made in A.No.3047 of 1973 in C.S.No.85 of 1939 dated 19.03.1974.
3. The petitioners would contend that as per the scheme amended in C.S.No.85 of 1939, the Committee of Management had been running the Family Charities without any allegations or complaints for several decades, while so, some of the trustees of Sri Adhikesava Perumal Peyalwaar Devasthanam, have developed some personal grudge against the petitioners and have started sending an unanimous complaints in the name of fictitious persons. Since they have close nexus with the Commissioner, namely, Mr.K.Pitchandi, the said Commissioner has passed an impugned order on 29.04.2009, wherein, the 1st respondent, in exercise of power under Section 53(2) & (3) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1959") had initiated action against the petitioners herein on the basis of the alleged charges relating to the period between the year 1988 and 2005, without even affording an opportunity to the petitioners to put fourth their pleadings for defending the entire allegations made in the said impugned order.
4. The petitioners would also contend that as per the impugned http://www.judis.nic.in 4 order dated 29.04.2009, it was alleged that there was an objection in the audit report which had been informed to the petitioners by the Joint Commissioner, H R & C E in Na.Ka.5057/08/A2 dated 30.05.2008, to which, the petitioners did not send any reply which made the 1st respondent to pass the impugned order in a hurried manner as against the petitioners.
5. The 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2009 to the following effect:-
i) The petitioners have been asked to submit their explanation on the allegations within a period of within a period of 15 days under Section 53(2) & (3) of the Act, 1959.
ii) The petitioners have been placed under suspension pending disposal of the above charges under Section 53(4) of the Act, 1959.
iii) In the petitioners' place, the 2nd respondent herein has been appointed as a Takkar to perform their functions under Section 53(4) of the Act, 1959.
6. The petitioners would further contend that since the subject http://www.judis.nic.in 5 matter is covered under the scheme decree passed by this Court, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such impugned order and they cannot interfere with the committee of management and the performance of charities without seeking modification in C.S.No.85 of 1939. Further, Section 64(5) of the Act, confers a power on the authorities to modify or cancel a scheme subject to the restrictions imposed therein. But, the 1st respondent has usurped the power of this Court and has passed the impugned order in a hurried manner, which clearly reveals that they have predetermined to pass an order against the petitioners under Section 53(2) & (3) of the Act.
7. Furthermore, the petitioners would contend that the impugned order in the form of a show cause notice under Section 53(2) & (3) of the Act, is virtually a final decision proposed to be taken under Section 53(2) of the Act, hence, there is no need or necessity to pass an order of suspension pending disposal of the alleged charges relating to the period between the year 1988 and 2005. When the Board had been conducting the audit in all those years, no allegations were made against the petitioners, but, the 1st respondent has invoked Section 53(4) of the Act against them, which is something wrong on the part of the 1st respondent. Further, the order of suspension pending charges http://www.judis.nic.in 6 and appointing a Thakkar in the petitioners' place for administration of the management of the trust is bad in law for non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
8. The petitioners would further contend that they have not been served with any show cause notice and nothing was pointed out earlier regarding the proceedings dated 30.05.2008 allegedly issued by the Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E and under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 29.04.2009 on various grounds.
9. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioners herein, are the trustees of T.V.R.Subbi Chetty's Family Charities and the charges framed against them based on the Audit report of the Institution, are as follows:-
i) Sale of immovable property of the trust without following the procedures and by illegal means causing monetary loss to the institutions. In certain cases sale amount has been misappropriated.
ii) Effecting name transfer of lease hold rights to the relatives company without following the procedure http://www.judis.nic.in 7 and causing monetary loss to the religious institution.
iii) Leasing out of immovable property of the trust without following procedures and thus caused monetary loss to the institution.
iv) Entered into compromise against the interest of the institution.
v) permitting the tenants of the trust property to demolish the shop and construct new building without following any procedure.
vi) fixing rent without following the procedures laid down in G.O.'s in force.
vii) Converted the Vasantha Mandapam into a Marriage Hall causing hindrance to the religious festival.
viii) and such other serious charges.
10. It has been further contended by the respondent counsel that the Joint Commissioner, Chennai, had directed the petitioners to furnish detailed reply on the objections raised in the Audit report by communication in Rc.No.5057/2008/A2 dated 30.05.2008, but, the petitioners did not sent any reply to the said communication, hence, the Joint Commissioner had sent detailed report on 23.09.2008 to the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Commissioner for taking action against the petitioners. The Commissioner, after thorough scrutiny of the connected records, had framed about 28 charges under Section 53(2) and (3) of the HR&CE Act, against the petitioners in Commissioner's Pro.Rc.54312/2008/A1 dated 29.04.2009 and had directed the petitioners to submit their written explanation within 15 days as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 53(2) and (3) of the Act. Further, placing the petitioners temporarily under suspension pending enquiry, the Commissioner had also appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmugu Ekambareswarar Temple, Mint Street, Chennai - 3 as the fit person and who has been functioning till date from 08.05.2009.
11. Furthermore, the respondent counsel would contend that the issue is not related to the modification of scheme, but, the serious irregularities committed by the petitioners as detailed in the impugned order and also the alienation of valuable properties, non performance of kattalais which have been pointed out in the Audit report of the Deputy Chief Audit Officer in Rc.No.127/08 dated 30.04.2008 addressed to the Joint Commissioner, Chennai. The Commissioner, only after the receipt of detailed report from the Joint Commissioner, Chennai, had placed the petitioners temporarily under suspension http://www.judis.nic.in 9 pending charges and had directed the petitioners to submit their written explanation within 15 days as to why action should not be taken against them. The petitioners, without replying to the said order, have approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition, hence, the respondent prays that the same has to be dismissed.
12. When the above Writ Petition was pending, a person namely, T.Sudharsan, one of the great grandson of T.V.R.Subby Chetty, had filed a petition in M.P.No.4 of 2009 for impleding him as a third respondent to the said Writ Petition, wherein, he has stated that the petitioners in W.P.No.9209 of 2009 had excluded him from management of the said charity and his repeated requests and reminders have not been heard by the petitioners in the Writ Petition. Further, they are acting against the interest of the trust by mismanaging the properties of the trust and unfortunately, the income was also siphoned off. Moreover, he has stated that the management of the charity is governed by the scheme degree of this Court in C.S.No.85 of 1939, however, without the permission of this Court, valuable property in Mundakanni Amman Koil street and Appadurai street, Mylapore, have been sold for almost illusory prices to the prejudice of the trust and for the personal benefit of the trustees. http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Hence, he has stated that he ought to be impleaded in this Writ Petition.
13. This Court, while dismissing the above M.P.No.4 of 2009, had observed that the challenge in this Writ Petition is only a suspension order. As far as the charges levelled against the petitioners are concerned, this Court had held that when a charge memo is under challenge, this Court can go into the question of Jurisdiction or whether there is latches, and as far as the merits of the allegations are concerned, this Court cannot go into the same and it is for the departmental authorities to be conducted an enquiry and to give a finding with regard to the allegations. Hence, this Court, giving a liberty to the impleading petitioner to approach the respondent department, if in his opinion, the petitioners have committed any irregularities, had dismissed the impleading petition.
14. The petitioners had also filed M.P.No.2 of 2009, to stay the operation of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.54312/2008/A1 dated 29.04.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, wherein, this Court, directing the Registry to list the Writ Petition for final hearing on 26.04.2010 and the respondents to file a counter, had disposed of the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 petition on 08.04.2010.
15. The 3rd respondent herein, namely, Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam, had also filed a petition in M.P.No.3 of 2009 for impleading them as 3rd respondent in the above Writ Petition, wherein, it has been averred that Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Temple, situate at Mylapore, Chennai, of Thengalai Persuasion, is comparatively old devasthanam and it is governed by a scheme originally settled in C.S.No.506 of 1922 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the file of this Court, modified in OSA.No.109 of 1926 dated 19.01.1951 and confirmed in OSA.No.43 of 1952 dated 26.08.1954. As per the said scheme, the Board of Trustees to be in charge of the administration of the Temple consisting of 5 trustees whose appointments are by co-option by the trustees. While that being so, the petitioners herein, who are the trustees of T.V.R.Subbi Chetty's Family Charities and the Administration of the trust is governed by the scheme originally framed under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure in C.S.No.85/1939 dated 13.10.1941 by this Court, which was subsequently modified by an order in Application No.3047/1973 dated 19.03.1974, though in the original scheme dated 13.10.1941 this Court had included one of the trustees of Sri Adikesava Perumal http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Peyalwar Temple as a member of the Board of Supervision, in the modified scheme, no notice was given to the said temple. Hence, the temple, namely, Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam, had separately filed an Application No.2260 of 2007 in Application No.3047 of 1973 in C.S.No.85 of 1939 before this Court, for modification of the scheme dated 19.03.1974.
16. The 3rd respondent would further contend that as per the original scheme and the modified scheme framed by this Court in C.S.No.85 of 1939, Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Temple, is entitled for the copy of the budget of the trust and the trustees of the said temple shall at liberty to apply to the Court for directions in regard to the working of this scheme. Further, the temple is entitled to seek for the due performance of usual utsavam and other charities listed under schedule 'D' of the scheme numbering items 1 to 24 and 43, and also for the performance of additional festival in Sri Adhikesava Perumal Temple at Mylapore, if there be any surplus defraying the expenses of the festivals, ceremonies and charities mentioned in other clauses. The said clauses in the scheme, enables the temple, to invoke the provisions of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and to proceed against the trust http://www.judis.nic.in 13 herein on its failure in the due performance of the service or charity which they are liable to be performed to the said temple as per the scheme framed by this Court.
17. The 3rd respondent would also contend that on coming to know that the said trust had started acting adverse to the interest of its major beneficiary, namely, Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Temple, several representations have been sent to the authorities and the last one was a complaint dated 02.01.2007 lodged with the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai - 34, highlighting several irregularities, its unlawful actions and its action of disposing trust properties without any legal sanction and under these circumstances, they sought for impleading them as a party to the said proceedings. However, the said M.P.No.3 of 2009 was allowed by this Court on 01.12.2009, as the petitioner therein, is a necessary party to the said proceedings.
18. As per the order of this Court dated 01.12.2009, the said temple, namely, Sri Adikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam, was impleaded as a third respondent in this Writ Petition. http://www.judis.nic.in 14
19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.
20. The petitioners' contention is that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass an impugned order without seeking modification in C.S.No.85 of 1939. Further, Section 64(5) of the Act, confers a power on the authorities to modify or cancel a scheme subject to the restrictions imposed therein. But, the 1st respondent has usurped the power of this Court and has passed an order in a hasty way, which clearly reveals that they have predetermined to pass an order against the petitioners under Section 53(2) & (3) of the Act, and the impugned order in the form of a show cause notice under Section 53(2) & (3) of the Act, is virtually a final decision proposed to be taken under Section 53(2) of the Act, hence, there is no need or necessity to pass an order of suspension pending disposal of the alleged charges, that too when the same is relating to the period 1988 and 2005. Therefore, the petitioners would contend that the said order was tainted with bias and malafideness.
21. The petitioners would further contend that when there was http://www.judis.nic.in 15 no allegations were made against the petitioners, while conducting the audit by the board in all those years, the respondents ought not to have invoked Section 53(4) of the Act, before a day of the retirement of the said Joint Commissioner, who has got no power to do so and only the Commissioner has got power to invoke such Section and to pass an order. Further, the petitioners would contend that before appointing the 2nd respondent as Takkar, the persons from the petitioners' managing committee, should have been heard by giving them an opportunity, but, without giving an opportunity, the order was passed by the respondent, hence, it is bad in law for non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
22. Moreover, the petitioners would contend that they have done everything as per the scheme suit and the impugned order has to be set aside for want of jurisdiction, when the 1st respondent has predetermined to pass an order of suspension.
23. In support of their contention, the petitioners relied on the Judgment reported by this Court in 2016 (1) CTC 9, in the case of C.Andiappan Vs. The Joint Commissioner, wherein, the HR & CE Department, stipulates two types of suspension as per Section 53(2) of the Act, namely, Suspension pending enquiry and Suspension imposed http://www.judis.nic.in 16 as measure of penalty. Section 53(2) of the Act, empowers the appropriate authority to suspend or remove or dismiss any trustee, if any of the contingencies stipulated in Clauses (a) to (k) therein arises, But, sub-section (3) of Section 53 makes it clear that before taking any action under sub-section (2), the appropriate authority should frame charges against the trustee and give him an opportunity to meet such charges. Therefore, the suspension contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 53, placed along with removal or dismissal of Trustees, is as a measure of penalty. But, in this case, it could be seen very well that the Appellate authority had only suspended the trustees and appointed a fit person in the place of the trustees, by observing principles of natural Justice. Further, when the audit objections were received, the petitioners were sent with the notice calling for explanation, to which, the petitioner did not reply, hence, the department has proceeded against the petitioners.
24. Furthermore, it could be seen from the above Judgment that the Act of Trusteeship, is recognised in India, wherein, the right to property includes right to transfer the property for a consideration. The office of Trusteeship cannot be transferred for a monetary consideration and it depends upon the proper management and administration of the property of the trust. A trustee of Public http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Charitable or Religious Endowment, forfeits his right to hold the office, the movement he commits an act that belies the trust reposed in him. Therefore, principle of natural Justice before slapping an order of suspension on a Hereditary Trustee under Section 53(4) of the Act pending enquiry into grave charges, is neither feasible nor required. In these circumstances, that necessitated the department to appoint a fit person. The petitioners' contention is that their suspension of Hereditary Trustee is not a bar for considering the claims of persons next in the line of succession to the office of trusteeship. The logic behind the aforesaid view is perhaps our traditional belief that sinners and saints need not necessarily beget sinners and saints, respectively. They would also submit that the fit answer given by the respondent counsel that the sister of the said trustees and also the person, great grandson of the said T.V.R.Subbi Chetty's Family Charities, had filed an application before this Court, to file an affidavit to the effect that the said trustees are acting against the interest of the trust, misappropriated the money and siphoned a lot of Income, which was saved for performance of the poojas and certain festivals in temple, the said properties are managed by the fit person for the present.
25. The 3rd respondent herein, has also relied on the Judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 1440, in the case of http://www.judis.nic.in 18 S.Hemalatha Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department & Others, wherein, relying on the Judgment of this Court reported in 1964 (1) MLJ 236, in the case of Soundararaja Mudaliar Vs. Dy. Commr., HR & CE, the petitioner would submit that even before exercising the power under Section 53(4) of the HR & CE Act, in passing temporary suspension, the enquiry authority should take into consideration all the reply and other factors, and the trustee has not given any budget estimates or particulars about the properties of the temple. This Court had held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the authority to suspend the trustee, pending disposal, can never be questioned, but, opined that in such circumstances, the authority should take into consideration the interest of the temple and while deciding the same, the nature of charge should also be taken into consideration. It was further held that there is an undoubted jurisdiction, conferred upon the authorities to suspend a trustee pending disposal of the charges against him, and it has been observed that Section 53(4) gives power to the authority to place the trustee under suspension and even to appoint a fit person, to discharge the trustee pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, in which, charges have been levelled against the trustee. http://www.judis.nic.in 19
26. Mr.M.Maharaja, the learned counsel for HR & CE department would contend that 101 proceedings have been initiated by the Department, but, no documents have been produced by the petitioners before the department.
27. The learned counsel for HR & CE department would further contend that sister of the said trustees and also the person, great grandson of the said T.V.R.Subbi Chetty's Family Charities, had also filed a complaint against the petitioners to safeguard the interest of the trust and order has to be issued by this Court. Further, he has given the list of properties which had been sold by the petitioners during the period from 14.05.2003 to 13.02.2009, wherein, it could be seen the petitioners/trustees had sold nearly 58 properties which belong to the said trust.
28. On perusal of the records, it could be seen that after issuing the audit report on 30.04.2008, immediately, the Joint Commissioner, Chennai, had called for a detailed reply from the petitioners to the objections raised in the audit report, to which, the petitioners did not respond, hence, the Joint Commissioner had reported the said issue to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner, who being a competent authority had initiated action under Section 53(2) of the Act, as it http://www.judis.nic.in 20 confers power to take disciplinary action against the trustees, and there is no predetermination or other things, as alleged by the petitioners. If the petitioners have not committed any mistake, they ought to have given an explanation and attended the enquiry before the authorities. But, without even replying to the said charges, they have directly approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition, hence, it cannot be accepted.
29. It could be further seen from the records that on receipt of a detailed report dated 23.09.2008 sent by the Joint Commissioner, Chennai, the Commissioner, who is the authority to pass orders in respect of the institutions published under Section 46(ii) of the Act, had passed the impugned order of suspension and appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Ekambareswarar temple, Mint Street, Chennai-3 as a fit person for administration of the trust. Further, the said person had assumed charge on 08.05.2009 and he has been collecting the rent from the tenant of the property of the institutions till date and remitting the amount into a separate bank account opened by him.
30. It could be also seen from the records that there are so http://www.judis.nic.in 21 many properties under the custody of the petitioners and 101 proceedings are pending before the Department. The petitioners have not cooperated with the 101 proceedings and the trustees are taking adjournments after adjournments stating the Writ Petition is pending before the High Court.
31. It could be further seen from the records that as per the scheme suit in C.S.No.85 of 1939, the management committee had been performing the said charity, while so, one of the beneficiary, namely, Sri Adhikesava Perumal Peyalwar Temple had got some grievances against the petitioners that they are not performing the said kattalais and utsavam, hence, the authorities of the said temple had given a complaint against the petitioners and different devotees. From the said complaints, it could be seen that nearly 12 properties have been sold by the petitioners trust within the area of Mylapore and there were 28 allegations have been levelled against the petitioners trust. Hence, the HR & CE Department had issued a notice dated 30.05.2008 to the petitioners trust as soon as the audit objections were received. Inspite of receiving the said notice, the petitioners trust did not give any explanation to the audit objections, hence, the Commissioner had passed an order dated 29.04.2009 directing the http://www.judis.nic.in 22 petitioners to submit their explanations within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said notice. Since the charges were very severe and against the interest of the trust, the three petitioners have been temporarily suspended and fit person from Arulmigu Ekambareswarar temple, has been appointed for administration of the trust.
32. The proceedings of the Commissioner dated 29.04.2009 in Pro.Rc.54312/2008/A1, are as follows:
nkw;go mwf;fl;lis eph;thfj;jpy; gy "
KiwnfLfs; ele;jJ Fwpj;J. brd;id ,iz Mizahpd; ftdj;Jf; bfhz;L tug;gl;L ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;ljhft[k; ,J bjhlh;ghf brd;id kz;ly jzpf;if mYtyh; kw;Wk; brd;id Jiz jiyik jzpf;if mYtyh;
mDg;gpa[s;s jzpf;if Fwpg;g[k; mjpy;
bjhptpf;fg;gl;l jzpf;if kWg;g[fSk; ,iz Mizauhy; ftdj;Jld; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;Wk; mjpy; Rl;of;fhl;oa fL';FiwghLfs; Fwpj;J gjpywpf;if rkh;g;gpf;f. ,iz Mizah; e/f/vz;/5057- 08-m2. ehs;/30/05/2008 Fwpg;gpd;
http://www.judis.nic.in 23 K:yk; gzpj;Jk; ,J ehs; tiu ,ilf;fhy gjpy; Tl bgwg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. vdnt nkw;fz;l mwf;fl;lisfspd; eph;thfj;ij jw;nghija mw';fhtyh;fs; jd;dpr;irahft[k; ,j;Jiwr; rl;l tpjpfis myl;rpag;gLj;jpa[k; nkw;bfhs;tJ bjspthfpwJ vd;Wk;
bjhptpj;J mw';fhtyh;fs; kPJ Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; Rkj;jp xG';F eltof;if vLf;fyhbkd ghpe;Jiu bra;Js;sdh;/ mjw;fhd Mtz';fis rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;/ brd;id ,iz Mizahpd; mwpf;if ftdj;Jld; ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,iz Mizah;
mwpf;ifapy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s fL';FiwghLfs; nkw;go mwf;fl;lis eyDf;F vjpuhft[k;. mwf;fl;lisapd; nehf;fj;ij g[wk;ng js;sptpl;L mw';fhtyh;fspd; Rayhgj;jpw;fhf rl;ltpjpfisg; gpd;gw;whkYk;. chpa mjpfhhpfspd; mDkjp bgwhkYk;.
bray;gl;lJ bjspthfpwJ/ vdnt. nkw;go mwf;fl;lis mw';fhtyh; kPJ ,e;j rka mwf;bfhilfs; rl;lg;gphpt[ 53(2) & (3)d; fPH; fPH;f;fz;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs;
http://www.judis.nic.in 24 Rkj;jg;gLfpd;wd."
33. It is stated in the above order that the petitioners have acted against the benefit of the trust and it is also clear that only on the basis of the audit report of the institution and the report of the Joint Commissioner, the Commissioner had passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2009, placing the petitioners under suspension, and there is no predetermination of passing an order, as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is violation of principle of natural Justice, cannot be accepted by this Court. Further, the show cause notice issued to the petitioners which was long back, despite the same, the petitioners have not responded to the show cause notice till date. Hence, the petitioners' claim that they were not given a chance to explain their stand, is not correct.
34. The properties and lands belonging to the temple, which has been maintained by the charitable institution in our state, are not properly maintained to achieve the nobel objects, for which, they were donated by the ancestors in the names of the trust and for the benefit of the temples. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, being the authority to regulate the affairs of the public http://www.judis.nic.in 25 religious institutions in the entire State ought not to shrink its responsibility from being the guardian of the properties belonging to religious institutions or temples in the state. As per the same, the authorities have to ensure that they fulfill the day to day needs of the temple administration and in celebrating the festivals, through out the year and to perform all the kattalais without default.
35. The petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2009, and nearly 9 years have been lapsed due to pendency of this Writ Petition. Further, the fit person appointed by the Commissioner, was also not in position to get the possession of the properties which are in the hands of the petitioners trust.
36. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the action taken by the 1st respondent against the petitioners/trustees, is correct and cannot be questioned by the petitioners herein. Since 101 proceedings are pending before the authorities, this Court, without expressing anything on merits, directing the petitioners to adduce evidence and to produce materials in their support before the respondent authority and the respondent authority is directed to complete the proceedings pending before the authorities within a http://www.judis.nic.in 26 period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without taking unnecessary adjournments. The respondent authority is also directed to consider the case on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of completion of 101 proceedings.
37. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
26.10.2018 raja Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To
1. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai - 34.
Copy To The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 27 http://www.judis.nic.in 28 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J., raja Pre-delivery Order in W.P.No.9209 of 2009 http://www.judis.nic.in 29 26.10.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in