Madras High Court
Mr.B.Murugesan vs The Commissioner on 17 October, 2014
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 17.10.2014 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.27662 of 2014 Mr.B.Murugesan, President-cum- Trustee of Sri Sadasamy Ammal Madam & Sri Subramaniyasamy Temple Trust ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Chennai. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Vaanur, Vaanur Taluk, Villupuram District. 3.The District Registrar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. ...Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.6.2014 thereby directing to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner indicating that Sri Sadasamy Ammal Madam & Sri Subramaniyaswamy Temple Charitable Trust and its property do not come under his purview/control. For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Adiapadam For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Kandasamy, SGP For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP ORDER
The petitioner is the President-cum-Trustee of a Mutt, having its headquarters at Puducherry. But, they have properties within the State of Tamilnadu. Therefore, when the petitioner made attempts to lease out the property, the Sub-Registrar refused to entertain the lease deed on the ground that permission of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department namely the first respondent is necessary. Therefore, after giving a representation to the first respondent, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on his representation.
2. Heard Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 to 4.
3. Though the first part of the prayer of the petitioner is very innocuous and can be considered, the second part proceeds on the footing that the first respondent has no control or jurisdiction over the properties of a Mutt, whose headquarters is located in Puducherry.
4. The said contention is contrary to the definition of the expression of 'Mutt', appearing in Section 6(13) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, which reads as follows :
" 'Math' means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in accordance with the direction of the Founder of the institution or is regulated by usage and-
(i) whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service; or
(ii) who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples;
and includes places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution;
Explanation : Where the headquarters of a math are outside the State but the math has properties situated within the State, control shall be exercised over the math in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in so far as the properties of the math situated within the State are concerned."
5. In view of the Explanation to Section 6(13), the petitioner is obliged to get permission of the first respondent.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.6.2014 in the light of the above provision and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
17.10.2014 Internet : Yes V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J RS To
1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Chennai.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Vaanur, Vaanur Taluk, Villupuram District.
3.The District Registrar, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
WP.No.27662 of 201417.10.2014