Madras High Court
Thirumalai Muthu vs The Commissioner on 3 November, 2023
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 29.09.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.16789 of 2023
1.Thirumalai Muthu
2.T.Deepan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Dindigul.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar
Thirukoil,
Kuchanoor, Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/40
W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
4.The Fit Person,
Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar
Thirukoil,
Kuchanoor, Theni District.
5.The District Collector,
Theni.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the continuance
of the 3rd respondent as executive officer and the 4th respondent as fit person in
Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar Thirukoil, Kuchanoor, Theni District, is
illegal and violative of the judgement of the Honourable Apex Court reported in
2014 (1) CTC 763 and also the conditions for appointment of Executive
Officers Rules 2015 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over
the administration of the said temple to the hereditary trustees.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R-1,2 & 5 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by
Mr.R.Ragavendran,
Government Advocate
For R-3 & R-4 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
For R-6 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/40
W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed for Writ of Declaration, to declare the continuance of the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer and the 4th respondent as Fit Person in Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar Thirukoil, Kuchanoor, Theni District, is illegal and violative of the judgement of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763 and also the conditions for appointment of Executive Officers Rules 2015 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the administration of the said temple to the hereditary trustees.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar Thirukoil, Kuchanoor, Theni District, is a public temple listed under section 46(3) of the HR & CE Act. The temple is an 'excepted temple' vide Board order in O.A.No.424 of 1926 dated 25.02.1927, thereby the administration of the temple is vested with hereditary trustees. After 1959 Act, the said temple is being administered by the hereditary trustees pursuant to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department in O.A.No.1 of 1986 dated 25.01.1988. As on date, there are seven hereditary trustees who shall administer the temple jointly. The first petitioner is one among the said seven https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 hereditary trustees. In the present temple, the peculiar facts of the said temple are that the hereditary trustees are acting as poojaries of the temple as well and they alone are entitled to perform Puja in the said temple. The first respondent vide proceedings dated 25.03.2003, had appointed the third respondent as Executive Officer under section 45(1) of the HR & CE Act. However, in pursuant to the judgment of the Chidambaram Temple case and pursuant to the framing of appointment of Executive Officers Rules 2015, the Executive Officer cannot continue in the temple beyond a particular period which is prescribed as maximum period of 5 years. Despite such legal provision and judgment, the third respondent Executive Officer is continuing to act as Executive Officer, which is illegal.
3. The petitioner further submitted that in order to bring the Executive Officer into the administration of the temple, certain false allegations were made against the hereditary trustees and charges were framed against them and pending charges they were also suspended by proceedings dated 27.03.2011, by invoking the powers under section 53(4) of the Act and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Mariamman, Vearapandi was appointed as Fit person replacing the trustees. Even Fit person appointed in the place of trustees cannot continue forever and could be there only for a limited period as per the judgment of the Chidambaram Temple case. Despite lapse of 10 years, both the Executive https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 Officer and the Fit person are continuing the administration of the temple illegally. After the disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent vide order dated 02.12.2014 passed the final orders under section 53(2) of the HR & CE Act, holding that the charges levelled against the hereditary trustees are proved. However, in the said order, it is stated that since the hereditary trustees have been kept out of administration for more than 3 years, the period in which they were kept under temporary suspension may be treated as a period of punishment. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner and another trustee had preferred review application under section 114 of the HR & CE Act before the Secretary to the Government, HR & CE Department and the same is pending. While so, another trustee had approached this Court challenging the proceedings of the first respondent Commissioner dated 02.12.2014 in W.P.No. 33237 of 2014 and initially an interim order was granted and subsequently, it would made absolute. On 15.07.2015, directing the Secretary to Government to consider the review application within a period of two months. The said review application / appeals were disposed of by the secretary to Government after lapse of 4 years. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019, wherein the first respondent proceedings dated 02.12.2014 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent with the direction to carry out Audit during the period in which the administration was with the hereditary trustees and based on the Audit report to rehear the charges by holding an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 enquiry and pass fresh orders and till such time, the administration will be continued by the Fit person and the Executive Officer of the temple. Challenging the said G.O.Ms.No.75, W.P.(MD)No.17729 of 2019 had been filed and the same is pending.
4. The further contention of the petitioner is that the hereditary trustees are suspended and when vacancies are created, under section 54(2) of the HR & CE Act provides the person next in line of succession may be considered in their place of vacancy, but the respondents did not consider the same with malafide intent of continuing in the administration. Hence, the second respondent herein who is the son of the first petitioner had given a request on 17.01.2021 to consider him as the next person in line in succession. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.2673 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 10.02.2022 directed the second respondent to consider the request and pass orders. The second respondent rejected the same vide proceedings dated 06.07.2022. The said order was challenged in W.P. (MD)No.18331 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 13.06.2023 quashed the order and issued a positive direction to appoint the hereditary trustee in the place of the petitioner's father. But the second respondent has not complied with the order and the petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings against the second respondent. In such circumstances the contention of the petitioner is that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 very continuation of the third and fourth respondents as Executive Officer and as Fit Person in the said temple is illegal, against the rules and in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court.
5. Moreover, the third and fourth respondents are maladministering and mis administering the temple rather than administrating the temple. The trustees were functioning as poojaries of the temple and in between the trustees, interse disputes in the issue of employing others as poojaries so as to assist the Trustees-cum-Poojaries was pending for quite a long time. One trustee by name Thirumalai Jeyapaul Muthu, when attempted to introduce his relative as poojari, the dispute loomed large. In this regard, there were serious litigations pending before the Courts. The three persons namely P.Gopinath, P.Sivakumar and Muthu Kannan who were sought to be introduced as poojaries under the guise of assisting the said Thirumala Jeyapaul Muthu, the litigations have cropped up. In this regard, the Joint Commissioner, second respondent herein has also initiated proceedings and have passed orders for evicting those persons and has also preferred police complaint. At one point, the said Thirumalai Jeyapaul Muthu started to claim that he alone is entitled to do puja in all the sannadhies in the said temple. In this regard, the Board of Trustees have taken a decision that the said persons shall not be permitted to do puja in the Temple vide resolution dated 22.06.2010. Thereafter, on 10.11.2010, it was resolved that all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 the trustees have equal rights and they shall perform pujas by rotation. The said decision was challenged by said Thirumalai Jeyapaul Muthu in W.P.(MD)No. 9187 of 2010 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 09.12.2010.
6. In the meanwhile, the said three persons managed to get an order from the first respondent Commissioner dated 28.07.2011 that they could be moved in the temple during the festival period on temporary basis. The said proceeding was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.9372 of 2011 and the said writ petition was closed on 10.01.2012 after recording the fact that they were subsequently disengaged after the festival was over. Inspite of the same, they continue to cause disturbance by attempting to enter into the temple under the guise of assisting the said Thirumalai Jeyapaul Muthu. While being so, one Krishnaveni was appointed as Executive Officer of the temple who made an attempt to bring in the said three persons into the temple on temporary basis for festival periods. However, when the matter was referred to by the Hon’ble Court in a batch of writ petitions, the Executive Officer in collusion with the said three persons have appeared before this Court and have made a statement that they were permitted only on temporary basis for celebration of the temple, which fact was recorded by this Court, vide order, dated 03.08.2017. However, the said Executive Officer had willfully suppressed the decision taken by the Board of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 Trustees not to engage them. In this regard, the first petitioner has lodged complaint against the said Executive Officer and the same is pending.
7. Taking advantage of the charges pending against the trustees and pending enquiry in this regard and trustees are out of administration, the Executive Officer and the Fit Person under the guise of the administration of the temple are making all sorts of illegal attempts to create records as if those persons were continuously employed in the temple and they must be regularized. From this it would be evident that the third and fourth respondents are administrating the temple as per their whims and fancies and are infact maladministering and mis administering the temple. Moreover, inspite of specific direction by this Court to record the petitioner as trustee and the same was not done. For all the reasons narrated stated supra, the petitioner is seeking to declare the appointment of Executive officer and the Fit Person is illegal based on the Executive Officer Rules 2015 and hence the petitioners had filed the present writ petition
8. The respondents have filed counter stating the writ petition is not maintainable, either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. When the trustees had faced disciplinary proceedings on various charges the 1st respondent under section 53 had initiated proceedings and passed final order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 dated 02.12.2014. Aggrieved over the same review petition under Section 114 was preferred before the Government. Pending writ petition some of the trustees had preferred writ petition in W.P.No.33237 of 2014 before Principal Bench. Initially interim stay was granted and subsequently on application to vacate the interim stay, the stay petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2015 directing the hereditary trustees to approach Secretary to the Government in the review application filed under section 114 and the main writ petition is still pending. Based on the orders of the Hon’ble Court, the Secretary to Government have taken the review application and passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019 and remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to carry out auditing for the period when the hereditary trustees were in administration and the said audit shall be carried on within a period of three months. Based on the audit report the punishment may be imposed by the Commissioner. Until then the temple shall be administered by the Executive Officer and the Fit person. Challenging the said G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019, the 1st writ petitioner had preferred W.P.(MD)No.17729 of 2019 and the same is pending without any interim orders and the respondents reserve their rights to prosecute the said petition separately. At this stage, it is claimed by the writ petitioner that since the hereditary trustees are placed under suspension pending charges, therefore the writ petitioners herein have submitted an application to consider the 2nd petitioner as next in line of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 succession as per section 54(2) of the Act, 1959. In this regard the writ petitioners here claim to have filed W.P.(MD)No.2673 of 2022 and the same was disposed on 10.02.2022 with the direction to consider the request made by the writ, petitioner here in and pass appropriate orders. As per the directions, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.07.2022 had considered and rejected the same, which is put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No. 18331 of 2022 and the same was allowed with following directions:
“14.There for taking into consideration of provisions of section 542 of the act and the judgement of division bench of this court reported in 20161CTC9 the writ petition is allowed the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 06.07.2022 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as he did it to the trustee in the place of his father. MM Thirumalai Muthu. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.
Against this order, the Department had preferred writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No. 1509 of 2023 and the Hon’ble Division Bench after hearing the arguments at stage of admission had considered the order passed by the Government directing the Executive Officer and Fit Person to continue to manage the temple had granted interim stay of the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. Hence the issue regarding the Executive Officer and Fit Person and management of Temple is seized of by the Division Bench of this court. Hence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 the present writ petition has to be clubbed with W.A.(MD)No.1509 of 2023 for rendering proper justice. The 1st writ petitioner who is one of the hereditary trustee having unable to succeed in all his illegal attempts have come up with the present writ petition praying to declare the continuance of the 3rd respondent herein as Executive Officer and 4th respondent herein as Fit Person as illegal, in view of the judgement reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763 as null and void and the same is not maintainable in view of the fact that the above judgement is under review as per Review Applications No.2 of 2016 to 5 of 2016 pending before Division Bench of this Court.
9. It is pertinent to note that hereditary trustees recognised by department have got themselves involved in series and serious allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement. On receipt of complaint, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings dated 27.03.2011 have kept the hereditary trustees under suspension and have appointed Fit person to administer the temple. The Fit person so appointed along with the Executive Officer administering the temple till date. Further the respondents submitted there are 21 serious charges levelled against the hereditary trustees and the same shall be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit. The charges levelled against the trustees includes failure on the part of the trustees to regulate the income of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 temple and their failure to obtain proper permission for sale of Archana articles and other articles in the temple and their failure to bring the rights attached to the temple for public auction, namely the right to sell pooja articles and the wilful disobedience to the order of the first respondent permitting the temple to enforce ‘ticket system’ in the temple and thereby prevented the temple from having its income. They have involved in issuing ‘Special Darshan Ticket’ unauthorisedly without the signature and seal of the Executive Officer and the Assistant Commissioner. The trustees have wilfully concealed the fact that the temple owns 3.50 acres of land and have disclosed that the temple owns only 1.47 acres and there by concealed the income from 2.03 acres of land belonging to the temple, thus causing loss to the temple. Further the trustees of leased out 1.47 acres of lands belonging to the temple to the brother of one of the trustees Mr Muthusonai that too without prior permission of the Department and without any public auction in this regard. The hereditary trustees failed to submit the accounts of the temple for audit, despite communication dated 21.02.2011 issued by the first respondent. Further, there was an announcement of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, based on which the 1st respondent have also issued orders on 20.10.2010 for various construction activities in the temple to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs, despite such sanction of the amount, no steps have been taken by the hereditary trustees to utilise the said amount and carry out the construction activities. The hereditary trustees with the evil intent of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 siphoning of funds and diverting the income of temple have created trust for Thirupani in the temple and have registered the said trust and have made the devotees to believe that through the trust they are performing various charities to the temple. Though, the said trust was associated with the charity and religious works attached to the temple, no prior permission was obtained from the department. Further the hereditary trustees have received donations to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) twice and they have not brought the same to the account of the temple but have credited the same in the trust account. They have published various advertisements regarding the said trust and have received all donations to the trust, but all in the name of the temple and have not utilised those donations for the benefit of the welfare of the temple. The trustee, by name Muthusonai have not handed over the charge, despite his period been over and have also failed to make payment of the loss sustained by the temple by shortage in the jewels. The hereditary trustees have issued tickets and have collected a sum of Rs.1600/- (Rupees One thousand and Six Hundred only) and have not brought the same to the temple account. The trustees have made false entries in the accounts of the temple as if pujas were performed in other sannadhis of the temple, but actually not being done and in this regard they have caused loss to the temple and to that extent the Board of Hereditary Trustees themselves have resolved to take appropriate action against the concerned trustees and despite the same no steps have been taken against https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 the trustees. In front of the temple, there all encroachments by various persons, who have put shops and were doing business, related to the activities to the temple and the trustees having known the said facts have not taken steps either to remove the encroachment or regularise them as tenants and thus they have acted against the welfare of the institution. Inside the temple without permission of the department, the hereditary trustees have permitted construction of an Ayyappan Sannadhi. The trustees issued various tickets without the permission of the Department and they have divided the income which is meant for the share of the Pujaris and thereby have caused monitory loss to the temple.
10. The respondents further submitted that as per the rules, the hereditary trustee shall have their meeting at least once in a month, but the trustees by disputing among themselves and by filing various cases before various forum, had acted against the interest of institution and no proper meetings were conducted and one group was accusing the other, but all the persons have involved in the misappropriation of temple funds and have acted against the welfare of the temple, which is evident from the facts that the trustees were acting against the interest of the institution and have cost monitory loss to the temple in question. The 1st respondent herein after holding proper enquiry have held the charges are proved and has observed that hereditary trustees had acted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 against the welfare of the temple in question and they have involved themselves in mismanagement and misappropriation of funds and also for which they are accusing each other and thereby brought the temple administration to the standstill. They have also failed to cooperate with the Executive Officer appointed for the purpose of the better administration of the temple. As against the same review were filed by the hereditary trustees before the Secretary to the Government, who had issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019 wherein the case is remitted back to the file of the 1st respondent with direction to carryout auditing for the period where the hereditary trustees was in administration and rehear the charges by conducting an enquiry and to pass fresh orders. It was made clear that till fresh orders are passed, administration would be continued by the Fit Person and the Executive Officer.
11. The respondents further submitted that on remitting the case based on G.O.Ms.No.75, separate audit was conducted by the Chief Auditor of Hindu, Religious and Endowments Department, Chennai and submitted a report to the 1st respondent vide proceeding dated 10.02.2020 to the effect that the charges levelled against the hereditary trustees are proved. On receipt of the audit report the 1st respondents with an intention to ensure that the rehearing is held for all the charges levelled against the hereditary trustees, after providing sufficient https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 opportunity to the interested persons have directed the Joint Commissioner Madurai to send report regarding the current status by proceedings dated 20.05.2020. At this stage due to COVID-19 lock down restriction, it was kept without any progress and after slowly lifting of lockdown restrictions when the report was called far from the jurisdiction, Joint Commissioner was bifurcated and the temple in question was brought under the Joint Commissioner, Dindigul and after bifurcation, the Joint Commissioner Dindigul have directed the Jurisdictional Inspector to furnish report on the current status and the same is under process and after getting appropriate report would be submitted by the Joint Commissioner. Thereafter the 1st respondent would pass appropriate orders as per the direction issued in G.O.Ms.No.75. At this stage entertaining the grievance of the writ petitioner would affect the said process and earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Court. The 1st petitioner who was unable to succeed in all his earlier attempts have now come up with the present attempt in order to take over the administration of the temple somehow or other and dilute the action taken against the hereditary trustees which includes the first petitioner. In fact when the same attempt was made while challenging the earlier order dated 02.12.2014 of the 1st respondent in W.P.(MD)No.33237 of 2014 before Principle Bench, the Hon’ble Court initially granted interim stay subsequently vacated and have directed to approach the Secretary under review jurisdiction under section 114. The secretary while remitting back the matter had made it clear, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 temple administration shall be continued by the Fit Person along with Executive Officer. And the 2nd petitioner herein preferred W.P.(MD)No.18331 of 2022 to appoint him as hereditary trustee as he is the next in line of succession and same was allowed by the Hon’ble Court on 13.06.2023, as against the same the Department has preferred writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1509 of 2023 and the Hon’ble Division Bench has granted interim stay vide order dated 07.09.2023 and the present writ petition is to be clubbed with the said writ appeal and no final order can be passed without deciding W.A.(MD)No.1509 of 2023.
12. The respondents further submit that ultimately in all the attempts the writ petitioners herein have failed and now come forward with the present writ petition praying to declare the continuance of the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer and the 4th respondent as Fit Person of the temple in question as illegal in the of the judgement filed by Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763. The respondent further submit the said judgement is not applicable to the present case, since in the present case, the hereditary trustees were suspended on serious charges and the same is yet to be attained finality. Only because of the pendency of the said proceedings, as an interim measure, Department have appointed the Fit person. Therefore the continuance of the Fit Person and Executive Officer of the temple https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 in question can only be reviewed after the final orders were passed in the Department to action taken against the hereditary trustees. Hence question of reviewing the decision does not arise at this stage. It is also pertinent to note that that are six hereditary trustees in which only first petitioner hearing have come up with the grievance of reviewing the continuance of Fit Person and Executive Officer of the temple in question. In fact, the first petitioner hearing is the cause for suspending the hereditary trustees and further to hereditary trustees namely Rajaraman and Thirumalai Jaipal, Muthu had given complaint against the first petitioner. On enquiry, which resulted in initiation of the department to enquiry and all the hereditary trustees have been suspended. At this stage discontinuance of the service of Fit Person and Executive Officer to the temple in question only affects the smooth administration of the temple. Therefore the respondents submitted that the petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed in limini. The respondents reserves their right to file additional counter affidavit if and when required. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.
13. Heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Ragavendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 5, Mr.S.P.Maharajan, the learned Special Government https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 Pleader for respondents 3 and 4 and Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for 6th respondent and perused the materials available on record.
14. The Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that when the charges are pending against the trustees, the hereditary trustees cannot claim to handover the administration. Admittedly the respondents had initiated proceedings against the hereditary trustees for various charges. But it is seen the 1st respondent had concluded the proceedings vide order dated 02.12.2014 wherein the 1st respondent had held the charges are proved, but while imposing punishment the 1st respondent had held that the hereditary trustees were out of management for so long years and the suspension period shall be treated as punishment. It is a classic case, at times it is better to accept certain orders rather than filing appeal or review. Had the hereditary trustees accepted this order and end the litigation, by this time hereditary trustees would be in management, but the Kuchanoor Saneeswarar had blocked the hereditary trustees wisdom. The hereditary trustees had filed review under section 114 to Government. And also had challenged the order dated 02.12.2014 in W.P.No. 33237 of 2014, wherein initially the Court granted interim stay but subsequently while hearing vacate stay petition had vacated the stay and directed the hereditary trustees to pursue the review petition filed under section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 114 before the Secretary to Government, but the main writ petition is still pending. Thereafter the Secretary had passed G.O.Ms.No.75 wherein the case is remitted back to the 1st respondent to conduct audit and thereafter to conduct enquiry and pass order. The G.O.Ms.No.75 is challenged in W.P.(MD)No.17729 of 2019, there is no interim order and the same is pending. On the comprehensive reading of the proceedings dated 02.12.2014 and 11.06.2019 (G.O.Ms.No.75) it is evident that the 1st respondent had imposed the punishment to treat the suspension period as punishment, which means the proven charges is relatively less serious and deserves such punishment. It would be useful to refer to the order of the 1st respondent and the same is extracted hereunder:
“cj;jut[ nkny bjhptpj;Js;sgo. guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fs; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l midj;Jf; Fw;wr;rhl;LfSk; epU:gzkhfpwJ/ guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fs; jpUf;nfhapy; mike;Js;s ,lj;jpy; trpf;fhky; btt;ntW Ch;fspYk;. ntW khepyj;jpYk; trpj;Jf;bfhz;L. jpUf;nfhapiy eph;tfpf;f rl;lg;gphpt[ 45d;fPH; epakpf;ffg;gl;l bray; mYtUf;F nghjpa xj;JiHg;g[ tH';fhky; bray;gl;Lsdh;/ nkw;go jpUf;nfhapYf;F rl;lg;gphpt[ 45(1)d; fPH; 2003k; Mz;oy;jhd; bray; mYtyh; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;shh;/ bgUk;ghyhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; bray; mYtyh;. epakdj;jpw;F Kd;g[ eilbgw;Ws;sJ/ mw';fhtyh; FG jpUf;nfhapiy rl;lg;go eph;tfpj;jpl cjtp g[hpant bray; mYtyh; epakdk; bra;ag;gLfpwhh;. Mdhy; guk;giu mw';fhtyh; jpUf;nfhapy; brhj;Jf;fis ghJfhj;jpl bray; mYtyUf;F kl;Lnk bghWg;g[ cs;sJ vd;Wk;. j';fSf;F bghWg;gpy;iy vd;gJ nghyt[k; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 myl;rpakhf tpsf;fkspj;Js;sshh;fs;/ ,jd;K:yk; jpUf;nfhapy; brhj;Jf;fis ghJfhf;f ntz;oa flikapypUe;J jtwpa[s;sdh;/ jpUf;nfhapypid j';fsJ Ra ,yhgj;jpw;fhf gad;gLj;jpa[s;sJ tprhuizapy; epU:gzkhfpwJ/ nkYk;. jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thfj;jpy; mf;fiwapd;wp xUth;kPJ xUth; khwp khwp Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fis Rkj;jp jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thfj;ij !;jk;gpf;f bra;Js;sdh;/ vdnt. ,tw;wpid ftdKld; ghprPypj;J fPH;fz;lthW cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/
1) Fw;w";rhl;lg;gl;l guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fs; jpU/vk;/vk;/ jpUkiy Kj;J. jpU/vk;/ jpUkiy Kj;Jf;Fkhh;. jpU/o/nf/ b$aghy; Kj;J. jpU/vk;/ gpughfh; kw;Wk;
jpU/R/nrJuhkd; Mfpnahh; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; KGikahf epU:gzkhdnghjpYk; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fspd; jd;ikapidf; fUj;jpy;bfhz;L. ,dp tU';fhy';fspy; bray; mYtyUf;F nghjpa xj;JiHg;g[ ey;fp jpUf;nfhtpy; eydpy; mf;fiwa[ld; bray;gl ntz;Lbkd mwpt[Wj;jp. mth;fs; j';fsJ jtWfis jpUj;jpf; bfhz;L bray;gl. kw;WbkhU tha;g;gspf;fyhk; vd Kot[ bra;J. rl;lg;gphpt[ 53(1) (b) kw;Wk;. 53(2)d; MizaUf;F mspf;fg;gl;l mjpfhuj;jpd;go. mth;fsJ jw;fhypf gzpePff; fhyj;jpidna jz;lidahff; (Suspension Treated as Punishment) fUjp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk;. mth;fsJ jw;fhypf gzpePff; k;. ,t;t[j;jut[ njjp Kjy; tpyf;fpf; bfhs;sg;gl;L cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/
2) Fw;w";rhl;lg;gl;l kw;bwhU guk;giu mw';fhtyuhd jpU/vk;/Kj;Jr;nrhiz. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; kPjhd tprhuiz epYitapy; ,Uf;Fk;nghJ fhykhfp tpl;ljhy;. mth; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; kPjhd nky; eltof;if iftplg; gLfpwJ/
3) nkw;go guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fspd; eltof;iffs; kJiu. ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw ,iz Mizauhy; bjhlh;e;J fz;fhzpf;fg;gLk; vd;Wk. xU khj fhy bfLtpw;Fs; Fiwfis epth;jj; p bra;J bfhs;s jtph;f;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; Kd; mwptpg;gpd;wp eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd;W bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
4) njdp khtl;lk;. cj;jkghisak; tl;lk;. Fr;rDhh;. mUs;kpF rdP!;tu gfthd; jpUf;nfhapy; guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fs; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s FiwghLfs; bgUk;ghyhditfs; jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thfj;jpw;F xj;JiHf;fhky; ,Ug;gJ kw;Wk; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 bray; mYtyUld; cWJizahf ,Ue;J bray;gl jtwpaJ. jpUf;nfhapy; vy;iyf;F mg;ghy; trpj;J eph;thfk; g[hptJ kw;Wk; ,j;Jiw caujpfhhpfSf;F fl;Lg;glhky; bray;gl;L tUtJ vd mwpag;gLfpwJ/ vdnt. nkw;go FiwghLfis tpiutpy; epth;j;jp bra;J jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thfj;ij jpwk;gl eph;tfpj;jpl mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;fs;/ jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; mth;fs; kPJ fLikahf eltof;if vLf;fg;gLk; vdt[k; vr;rhpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
5) njdp khtl;lk;. cj;jkghisak; tl;lk;. Fr;rDhh;. mUs;kpF Rak;g[ rdP!;tu grthd; jpUf;nfhapypd; guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fs;. ,e;J rka mwf;bfhilfs; rl;lg;gphpt[fSf;F cl;gl;Lk;. mjd;fPH; cs;s tpjpfSf;F cl;gl;Lk;. ,th;fs; bray;gl ntz;Lbkd vr;rhpf;if bra;ag;gLfpwJ/
6) nkw;fz;l Fw;wr;rhl;oy;. guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fspd; eph;thf fhyj;jpy; jpUf;nfhapypd; tut[ bryt[ fzf;Ffis rpwg;g[j; jzpf;iff;F cl;gLj;j jtwpa[s;sjhy;. nkw;go tut[ bryt[ fzf;Ffis rpwg;g[j; jzpf;if bra;jpl. Jiyik jzpf;if mYtyUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/
7) nkw;fz;l guk;giu mw';fhtyh; Fgj;jiyth; kw;Wk; mw';fhtyh;fsplk; bghWg;gf[ is xg;gilj;J tpLgl jf;fhUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ./
8) nkw;go jpUf;nfhapy; rhh;gpy; 1982y; btspaplg;gl;l jytuyhw;Wg; g[jj; fj;jpy; jpUf;nfhapYf;F brhe;jkhf 3/50 Vf;fh; epyk; cs;sJ vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ bjhlh;ghft[k; kw;Wk; jpUf;nfhapYf;Fr; brhe;jkhd bcwf;nlh; 8.70 e";ir epy';fs; bjhlh;ghft[k;. rk;ge;jg;gl;l tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpw;F nehpy; brd;W chpa Mtz';fis ghprPypj;J. chpa eltof;if vLf;FkhW bray; mYth; kw;Wk; guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fisa[k; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;fz;l cj;juthy; ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhf fUjpdhy;. 1959k; Mz;L ,e;J rka mwepiyaf;bfhilfs; rl;lj;jpd; rl;lg;gphpt[ 53(5)d; fPH; ,e;j Miz fpilf;fg;bgw;w xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; murplk; nky;KiwaPL bra;J bfhs;syhk; vdj; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 The order states that most of the allegations against the hereditary trustees are not cooperated with the department, not obeying the order of the authorities, not carry out the instructions of the authorities. Even though the respondent may take a plea that this order had merged with the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019, but this Court is relying on the order only to ascertain the gravity of the charges. When the order dated 02.12.2014 of the 1st respondent only impose punishment to treat the suspension period as punishment (the hereditary trustees were out of management from 2003 to 2014 when the order was passed on 02.12.2014, i.e. nearly 11 years, as on date nearly 20 years), in such circumstances, there will not be any impediment if the hereditary trustees are allowed to function as hereditary trustees. It is only the Secretary to Government while passing the G.O.Ms.No.75 has stated that the Executive Officer and the Fit Person shall continue with the administration, which is challenged in W.P.(MD)No.17729 of 2019. But there is no stay in W.P.(MD)No. 17729 of 2019. Again it is evident that at times it is better to accept certain orders rather than filing appeal or review or writ petition. Moreover it is seen based on direction issued in G.O.Ms.No.75 the audit was carried out and the report is submitted to the 1st respondent, the copies are served to the hereditary trustees and the 1st respondent ought to conduct enquiry and pass orders. Even then the 1st respondent can pass orders for the mistake but cannot not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 perpetually keep the hereditary trustees away from the management. Hence it would be prudent to put the hereditary trustees back in management.
15. The next contention of the respondents is that there are connected writ petitions and writ appeal pending before Principal Bench and Madurai Bench. In Principal Bench the W.P.No.33237 of 2014 is pending which has been filed challenging 02.12.2014 order, but subsequently based on the interim direction in the said writ petition the review application filed under section 114 and the same was considered by the Secretary to Government and G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019 was passed. Hence there cannot be any effective litigation in the said writ petition. Next the W.P.(MD)No.17729 of 2019 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 11.06.2019 and there is no interim order. Moreover, based on the direction issued in G.O.Ms.No.75, the authorities had proceeded further, conducted audit, report is submitted before the 1st respondent and the same is pending for further enquiry. Hence the said writ petition cannot be impediment to grant the relief of handing over the management to the hereditary trustees.
16. As far as W.P.(MD)No.13134 of 2017 and W.P.(MD)No.21027 of 2017 is concerned, it was filed challenging the appointment of persons to assist the poojaris during the 2017 festival. Admittedly there were some disputes between the poojaris in the issue of appointing persons to assist the poojaris. It https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 is pertinent to state that the hereditary trustees are acting as poojaris in the present temple. But the same was resolved between the hereditary trustees as early as 2010. According to the petitioner, the respondents, especially Executive Officer is creating problem between the poojaris. The petitioner had submitted that three persons namely P.Gopinath, P.Sivakumar and Muthu Kannan who were sought to be introduced as poojaries under the guise of assisting the said Thirumala Jeyapaul Muthu, the litigations have cropped up. In this regard, the Joint Commissioner, second respondent herein has also initiated proceedings and have passed orders for evicting those persons and has also preferred police complaint. At one point, the said Thirumalai Jeyapaul Muthu started to claim that he alone is entitled to do pooja in all the sannadhies in the said temple. In this regard, the Board of Trustees had taken a decision that the said persons shall not be permitted to do pooja in the Temple vide resolution dated 22.06.2010. Thereafter, on 10.11.2010, it was resolved that all the trustees have equal rights and they shall perform poojas by rotation. The said decision was challenged by said Thirumalai Jeyapaul Muthu in W.P.(MD)No.9187 of 2010 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 09.12.2010. Hence the writ petitions filed in W.P.(MD)No.13134 of 2017 and W.P.(MD)No.21027 of 2017 is regarding appointment of persons to assist the poojaris and it is nothing to do with the handing over of management to the hereditary trustees and hence the plea of the respondent cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Board of Trustees had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 resolved the disputes by resolving to conduct pooja on rotation and hence as on date there is no dispute to conduct pooja by rotation.
17. Infact the petitioner is alleging that the Executive Officer and the Fit Persons in order to remain in management is instigating persons so that they can remain in the post. When the Board of Trustees had resolved to do the poojas on rotation, when the same was challenged and this Court has dismissed the same in W.P.(MD)No.9187 of 2010, the Executive Officer without bring this to the knowledge of the Court had allowed three persons to continue to assist one of the poojaris and the Executive Officer failed to bring to the knowledge of the court while the issue was considered. Therefore, the attitude of the Executive Officer and the Fit person ought to be taken in account while deciding the issue.
18. It is pertinent to mention herein when the hereditary trustees could not succeed the litigation, the next in line of succession i.e. the 2 nd petitioner prayed to appointment him as trustee by invoking section 54 (2) of the Act and the two writ petitions were allowed. But the department filed W.A.(MD)No.1509 of 2023 and had obtained interim stay. Hence the 2nd respondent could not be appointed as trustee who is next in line of succession. The department had frustrated the chance to hand over the charge to the management and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 allegation that the department is not inclined to hand over seems to have some substance.
19. The next contention of the petitioner is that the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 issued in G.O.Ms.No.260 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE4-2) Department dated 06.11.2015 published in gazette on 06.11.2015, states that any Executive Officer shall be appointed only for a period of five years. The relevant portion of the rule is extracted hereunder:
“the Commissioner may, after holding such inquiry as he may consider it necessary and expedient, in the interest of such religious institution, by order, appoint an Executive Officer for such religious institution, for such period or periods as may be specified by the Commissioner in the order not exceeding a period of five years at a time” The rule specifically states that the Executive Officer cannot be appointed exceeding five years at a time. In the present case the Executive Officer was appointed on 25.03.2003 and is continuing for more than 20 years. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Executive Officer cannot continue further.
20. The Learned Additional Advocate General had vehemently argued that the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 came https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 into effect only on 06.11.2015, hence the same is not applicable to any Executive Officer appointed prior to the said rules. Even if this argument is accepted, then also subsequent to the said rules, the post of Executive Officer is deemed to have been appointed under the said rules. In such circumstances, if it is taken that the Executive Officer was appointed on 06.11.2015 (the date on which the Rules came into effect) then the Executive Officer can continue until 06.11.2020 and not beyond the said date. It was faintly attempted to convince the Court the present Executive Officer was appointed recently and his five years term is not over. This plea is totally against the concept of appointment of Executive Officer. On baring reading of the provision, itself it is evident that the said Rules speak of “post concern” and not “person concern”. The temple shall have Executive Officer post only for a period of five years at a time and not beyond the said five years. Therefore, the feeble attempt of the respondent that the same is person concerned is incorrect, illegal and not sustainable.
21. The object of appointment of Executive Officer is to set right the administration, where ever there is vacuum in the administration, where ever there is maladministration and misappropriation, where ever the trustees are facing disciplinary proceedings etc. Once the said reason is not there then the Executive Officer ought to hand over the administration to the trustees. The appointment of Executive Officer is elaborately considered in Dr.Subramanian https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763 wherein it is held as under:
“47. Even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in favour of the persons deprived. Therefore, taking over of the management in such circumstances must be for a limited period. Thus, such expropriatory order requires to be considered strictly as it infringes fundamental rights of the citizens and would amount to divesting them of their legitimate rights to manage and administer the temple for an indefinite period. We are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for failure to prescribe the duration for which it will be in force.
Super-session of rights of administration cannot be of a permanent enduring nature. Its life has to be reasonably fixed so as to be co- terminus with the removal of the consequences of maladministration. The reason is that the objective to take over the management and administration is not the removal and replacement of the existing administration but to rectify and stump out the consequences of maladministration. Power to regulate does not mean power to supersede the administration for indefinite period.
Regulate is defined as to direct; to direct by rule or restriction; to direct or manage according to the certain standards, to restrain or restrict. The word `regulate’ is difficult to define as having any precise meaning. It is a word of broad import, having a broad meaning and may be very comprehensive in scope. Thus, it may https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 mean to control or to subject to governing principles. Regulate has different set of meaning and must take its colour from the context in which it is used having regard to the purpose and object of the legislation. The word `regulate’ is elastic enough to include issuance of directions etc. (Vide: K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1985 SC 660; and Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited & Ors. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 345)
48. Even otherwise it is not permissible for the State/Statutory Authorities to supersede the administration by adopting any oblique/circuitous method. In Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336, this Court held:
“It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of “quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud”. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by “shift or contrivance”.” (See also: Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh, AIR 1979 SC 381; A.P. Diary Dev. Corporation federation v. B. Narsimha Reddy & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 3298; and State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 3470).
49. We would also like to bring on the record that various instances whereby acts of mismanagement/maladministration/ misappropriation alleged to have been committed by Podhu Dikshitars have been brought to our notice. We have not gone into those issues since we have come to the conclusion that the power under the Act 1959 for appointment of an Executive Officer could not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 have been exercised in the absence of any prescription of circumstances/ conditions in which such an appointment may be made. More so, the order of appointment of the Executive Officer does not disclose as for what reasons and under what circumstances his appointment was necessitated. Even otherwise, the order in which no period of its operation is prescribed, is not sustainable being ex facie arbitrary, illegal and unjust.” In such circumstances, the appointment of Executive Officer and Fit Person perpetually is against the concept of appointment of Executive Officer stated in the Act and Rules made thereunder and hence in the present case the Executive Officer and the Fit person cannot be allowed to continue.
22. The appointment of Executive Officers and Fit Persons were dealt with in several judgments, wherein it is held that they cannot be appointed perpetually. This Court has elaborately dealt with the appointment of Fit Person in W.P.(MD)No.21734 of 2023 vide order dated 11.09.2023 after referring to the following judgments:
a. W.P.(MD)No.20915 of 2013 dated 30.09.2015 in Arulmigu Angala Eswari Amman Temple Vs. Commissioner b. N.Sivasubramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (2) CTC 49 c. Arulmigu Athanoorammal Podarayasamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner HR & CE (Admn) Department reported in CDJ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 2012 MHC 3783 d. R.R. Thirupathy and others Vs. Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment reported in (2015) 3 LW 106 e. H.H.Sankarachari Seamigal Kanchi Kamakodi Peetam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No.23096 of 2013 dated 12.02.2020 f. Sri Ram Samaj Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2022 (4) MLJ 449 e. Solaimuthuraja Vs. Commissioner HR & CE reported in 2010 (2) CTC 289 f. R.Shanmugasundram Vs. Commissioner of HR & CE (1991 2 MLJ 582) g. W.P.(MD)No.22398 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023
23. In the writ petition filed in W.P.(MD)No.21734 of 2023 this Court has considered the issue of appointing Fit person vide order dated 11.09.2023 and has held as under:
“13. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are appointing Fit person or Executive Officer based on the judgment dated 07.06.2021 of the Hon’ble Division Bench rendered in Suo Moto W.P.No.574 of 2015. Consequently, the Commissioner HR&CE had issued Circular to appoint Fit person or Executive Officer in all the temples. The relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 TRUSTEE (54) The HR&CE Department shall file a report before this Court within a period of eight (8) weeks listing out the number of temples without Trustees, the duration of such vacancy, the particulars of the persons appointed as “Fit Person” and the steps taken by the Department to appoint trustees.
(55) If no hereditary trustees stake claim, then steps must be taken to appoint non-hereditary trustees. The non-hereditary trustees must be from the religious denomination, to which the temple belongs to, without the political background.
(56) Stringent rules on the conduct, character, interest and knowledge on both religious affairs as well as administrative abilities of the trustees, must be enacted to ensure that the right person is appointed to manage the religious affairs of the temples.
(57) Keeping in mind that the overall administration shall be with the HR&CE Department, the authorities shall supervise the affairs of the religious institutions ensuring that the HR&CE Act is strictly complying with by the trustees and taking necessary remedial steps for which they are paid an annual contribution as specified under Section 92.
But the Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the Commissioner had issued such Circular based on the said Judgment, but in the present case the Fit person was appointed was appointed on 08.06.2018, which is prior to the judgment or the Circular stated supra. Be that as it may, it is seen that the respondents are appointing indiscriminately without any basis. The Hon’ble Division Bench had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 directed to appoint Fit Person or the Executive Officer where ever there is no Trustees. But the respondents are trying to appoint Fit person and Executive Officer by somehow the trustees and the same cannot be entertained.
14. The aforesaid judgments, conclusively in unequivocal terms had laid down:
(i). That the respondents should subjectively satisfy based on the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case that it is necessary to appoint Fit person or Executive Officer for the management of temple.
(ii) That the respondents should issue notice to the existing management before appointing the Fit person or Executive Officer.
(iii) That the respondents shall appoint the Fit person or Executive Officer for the limited period only and the tenure ought to be indicated in the appointment order of Fit person or Executive Officer.
(iv) That the respondents should hand over the management to the temple at the earliest.
(v) That the respondents may appoint Fit person or Executive Officer where ever there are no Trustees
(vi) That the respondents shall not artificially create a situation in order to usurp the management.
15. In the present case, there is no allegation of misappropriation and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 mismanagement of temple and there is no subjective satisfaction to this effect. The respondents have not issued any prior notice for appointing the Fit person. The respondents have not mentioned any tenure for appointing the Fit person. Therefore, the appointment of Fit person is illegal and the impugned order is quashed.
16. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition / suit to management the and the same shall be filed within a period of four weeks.
17. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18. Before parting with the judgment, this Court is bound to record that the administration of temples are being carried out by the people. If the same is disturbed then the people would be forced, either to litigate or remain jobless. In either way the Government or the respondents ought to face the same. If litigation then the Courts would be flooded with litigation against the respondents. If to remain jobless then it would be devil’s mind, which would be creating ruckus and the Government would be forced to handle the same. Therefore, the Government and respondents ought to show some restrain before appointing Fit person or Executive Officer. They cannot mechanically appoint Fit person or Executive Officer.”
24. Further the judgment rendered in W.P.(MD)No.21734 of 2023 is followed in W.P.(MD) No.13749 of 2014 vide order dated 21.09.2023 and in W.P.(MD) No.15234 of 2023 vide order dated 11.09.2023. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
25. Therefore, from the judgments cited supra it would be evident that the Executive Officer and Fit Person cannot be beyond the period of five years at time. In the present case the Executive Officer and Fit Person are in the management for more than 20 years and hence they cannot be allowed to continue. Hence the respondents ought to hand over the charge to the Board of Trustees. Hence the 1st petitioner along with the other trustees is entitled to get the management. Even though only one trustee is before this Court, this Court is directing the respondents to hand over the charge to the Board of Trustees with a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. As far as the claim of the 2nd respondent is concerned, he is entitled to be considered after the disposal of the stay application or after disposal of the writ appeal pending in W.A.(MD)No. 1509 of 2023.
26. This Court fondly hopes that this order would be the beginning to end the prolonged litigation between the Board of Trustees and respondents and also among the Board of Trustees. And Kuchnoor Saneswarar becomes “Santha Saneswarar”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
27. For the observations and reasons stated supra, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 To
1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul.
3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar Thirukoil, Kuchanoor, Theni District.
4.The Fit Person, Arulmighu Suyambu Saneeswarar Thirukoil, Kuchanoor, Theni District.
5.The District Collector, Theni.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/40 W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 S.SRIMATHY, J.
Sml W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023 03.11.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/40