Madras High Court
Sri Vengeeswarar vs The Secretary on 15 June, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.27240 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.27240 of 2013
and
W.M.P.No.28068 of 2021
Sri Vengeeswarar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
The Tamil Culture and Development and
Hindu Religious Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned order vide 13.06.2013 in G.O.(Standing) No.148
of Tourism, Culture and Religious (A.Ni3.1) Department passed by the first
respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.36665/2009/C2 dated 01.03.2011 and to quash the same and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
W.P.No.27240 of 2013
consequently direct the first respondent to return the sum of Rs.1,75,025.15
transferred based on the G.O.Ms.No.853 dated 04.08.1984 from the funds of
the petitioner's Devasthanam in the Fasili year 1394 along with interest.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Sadasharam
For Respondents : Mr.S.Yashwanth
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order vide 13.06.2013 in G.O.(Standing) No.148 of Tourism, Culture and Religious (A.Ni3.1) Department passed by the first respondent confirming the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.36665/2009/C2 dated 01.03.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to return the sum of Rs.1,75,025.15 transferred based on the G.O.Ms.No.853 dated 04.08.1984 from the funds of the petitioner's Devasthanam in the Fasili year 1394 along with interest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of Aruzhmigu Vengeeswarar Alagar Perumal and ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 8 W.P.No.27240 of 2013 Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam and that during the lifetime of the petitioner's father Thiru.K.M.Gowri Shankar, a sum of Rs.1,75,000./- was paid from the sale proceeds of certain lands. It is submitted that this amount should be refunded back to the petitioner as the petitioner does not have sufficient income to meet the expenses. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner by his order dated 01.03.2011.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.No.7083 of 2012 which came to be disposed by an order dated 22.08.2012 with the following observations:
“4. In the light of the alternative remedy available to challenge the correctness of the order, dated 01.03.2011, this Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Government under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of issuance of a copy of this order and if any such appeal is filed, the Government, HR & CE Department, shall consider the appeal too be filed and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (4) months, from the date of filing of the appeal. Since the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order, Registry is directed to return the original impugned order, after retaining a copy of the same. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.” ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 8 W.P.No.27240 of 2013
4. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition under Section 114 of the HR & CE, Act, 1959. By the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2013, the first respondent has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner, in the light of letter dated 25.02.2013 and 10.05.2013 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.36665/2009/C2 of the Commissioner. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The operative portion of the Impugned Order reads as under:-
4/ kDjhuu; mspj;j rPuha;t[ kD kPJ 23/04/2013 md;W fhiy 11/00 kzpastpy; Kjd;ikr; brayhsh; mth;fshy; neuo tprhuiz nkh;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ mt;tprhuizapd;nghJ &/1.75.000 rPuha;t[ kDjhuh; jpU/Ip/gpnuk; Mde;j; mth;fspd; je;ijahy; jd;tpUg;gg; nghpy; bfhLf;fg;gl;ljh vd;gija[k;. mj;bjhif jpUf;nfhapy; ,lk; tpw;W te;j bjhif jhdh my;yJ kpifahd bjhifah vd;gJ Fwpj;j tphpthd mwpf;ifapid mDg;gp itf;FkhW ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw Mizahplk; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ 5/ ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw Mizah; jdJ nkny ehd;fhtjhf gof;fg;gl;l fojj;jpy;. brd;id. tlgHdp/ mUs;kpF nt';fP!;tuh;. mHfh; bgUkhs; kw;Wk; ehfhj;jk;kd; jpUf;nfhapypd; jw;nghija guk;giu mw';fhtyhpd; je;ija[k; mg;nghija guk;giu mw';fhtyhplkpUe;J murhiz vz;/853 tzpfthp kw;Wk; mwepiyaj;Jiw. nkw;go bjhid mg;nghija guk;giu mu';fhtyhpd; jd; tpUg;gj;jpd; mog;gilapnyna tH';fg;gl;ljhf fUj ntz;oa[s;sJ vd;Wk;. Mth; jd; tpUg;gkpd;wp tH';fpdhh; vd;gjw;fhd Mjhuk; VjkpUg;gpd; mjid kDjhuh; jhd; epUgpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. Epytpw;gid KjyPLfs; jiyg;gpy; gpd;tUk; grypfspy; fPH;fz;lthW ,Ug;g[ cs;sjhf kz;ly jzpf;if mYtyuhy; bjuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ t/vz;/ gryp bjhif 1/ 1384 &/7.39.296/67 2/ 1393 &//8.84.257/81 3/ 1394==(1984) &//8.04.298/78 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 8 W.P.No.27240 of 2013 gryp 1394 y; bkhj;j KjyPLfshf &//8.21.375/44-/k; mjw;F tl;oahf &//1.00.674/06 Fljy; &//9.22.049/50 ,Ug;gpy; cs;sJ vd;Wk;. bkhj;j KjyPLfspd; tl;oj; bjhifahf kl;Lk; gryp 1384 Kjy; 1394 Koa bkhj;jk; &//8.89.475/92 tug;bgw;Ws;sJ vd;Wk;. Vdnt kDjhuh; bjhptpf;Fk; bjhif. epytpw;gid bjhif vd;gij kDjhunu fz;og;ghf epUgpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. Kdjhuhpd; je;ij capUld; ,Ue;j fhyj;jpy;. ,J epytpw;gid bjhif vd;nwh. my;yJ cghp epjp vd;nwh bjhptpf;fhjjhYk;. nkw;go bjhifia jpUk;gf;nfl;L ve;j nfhupf;ifa[k; vH{g;ghj epiyapy;. mtuJ kiwtpw;F gpd; mtuJ kfdhd kDjhuh; ,f;nfhhpf;ifia vH{g;g rl;lg;go vt;tpj mjpfhuKk; ,y;yhj epiyapy;. kDjhuupd; nfhupf;ifia epuhfupf;fyhk; vd;Wk;. nkYk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; tH';fpa fhy msit kPwp cah;ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpw;F vjpuhf fhyjhkjkhf kDjhuh; ,e;j rPuha;t[ kDtpid jhf;fy; bra;Js;sjhy; mjd; mog;gilapYk;. ,e;j rPuha;t[ kDtpid js;Sgo bra;ayhk; vd Mizah; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ 6/ kDjhuh; jpU/Ip/gpnuk; Mde;j; mth;fspd; rPuha;t[ kD rk;ge;jg;gl;l Mtz';fSld; murhy; ftdkhf guprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ/ kDjhuhpd; je;ij capUld; ,Ue;j fhyj;jpy;. brd;id. tlgHdp/ mUs;kpF nt';fP!;tuh;. mHfh; bgUkhs; kw;Wk; ehfhj;jk;kd; jpUf;nfhapypUe;J ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw Mizauhy; eph;tfpf;fg;gl;L tUk; Mya nkk;ghl;L itg;g[ epjpj;jpl;lj;jpw;F 1984Mk; Mz;L tH';fg;gl;l bjhifahd &//1.75.000/- epytpw;gid bjhif vd;nwh. my;yJ cghp epjp vd;nwh bjuptpf;fhjjhYk;. mth; nkw;go bjhifia jpUk;gf;nfl;L ve;j nfhupf;ifa[k; vGg;ghj epiyapy;. MtuJ kiwtpw;F gpd; mtuJ kfdhd kDjhuh; ,f;nfhhpf;ifia vGg;g rl;lg;go vt;tpj mjpfhuKk; ,y;yhj epiyapy;. kDjhuupd; nfhupf;ifia epuhfupj;Jk;. nkYk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; tH';fpa fhy msit kPwp cah;ePjpkd;w cj;jutpw;F vjpuhf fhyjhkjkhf kDjhuh; ,e;j rPuha;t[ kDtpid jhf;fy; bra;Js;sjhy; mjd; mog;gilapYk;. mj;bjhifia jpUk;gf;nfhUk; jpU/Ip/gpnuk; Mde;j; ,e;J rka mwepiyf;bfhilfs; rl;lg;gpupt[ 114d; fPH; muRf;F mspj;Js;s rPuha;t[ kDtpid js;Sgo bra;J muR mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ/ (MSehpd; Mizg;go) uh/fz;zd;
muR Kjd;ikr; brayhsh;/ ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 8 W.P.No.27240 of 2013
5. The Impugned Order is challenged by the petitioner is primarily on the ground that the amount that was paid by the petitioner's father is to be refunded back to the petitioner as the amount that was paid way back in the year 1984, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.853, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 04.08.1984 was not an amount which was generated by the Temple by firm sale of certain lands in distress.
6. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the documents to substantiate the same. However, the petitioner has failed to produce any document to substantiate the same. Therefore, the order of the second respondent Commissioner dated 01.03.2013 appears to be in order.
7. The petitioner has not been able to point out any other deficiency in the order passed by the first respondent by impugned order dated 13.06.2013 bearing reference murhiz (epiy) vz;/148/ Unless the petitioner is able to substantiate that there was a procedural irregularity committed by the respondent while passing the impugned order, there cannot be any interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 8 W.P.No.27240 of 2013
8. The Court is not concerned with the decision per se but with the decision making process. In absence of any grounds to substantiate that there is any material irregularity by the respondent while passing the Impugned Order. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the Impugned Order.
9. That apart, it is noticed that in the petitioner owes a sum of Rs.27,45,963/- towards contribution and Audit Fees fixed and levied under Section 92(1) & (2) of the Act up to fasli 1422 (English Calender Year 2012). I do not find any merits in this writ petition. Perhaps this writ petition has been filed only with a view to stave the aforesaid demand.
10. This Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and therefore stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.06.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order rgm ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 8 W.P.No.27240 of 2013 C.SARAVANAN, J.
rgm To
1. The Secretary, The Tamil Culture and Development and Hindu Religious Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
W.P.No.27240 of 2013
and W.M.P.No.28068 of 2021 15.06.2022 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 8