Madras High Court
Kandasami Pillai vs The Commissioner on 5 September, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.26871 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 03.08.2022
Pronounced On 05.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.26871 of 2021
Kandasami Pillai ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Salem District 636 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kottai Mariamman Temple,
Salem 636 001.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Kottai Mariamman Temple,
Salem 636 001.
5.The Executive Officer,
Vadasennimalai Balasubramaniam Temple,
Vadasennimamali, Thalaivasal Taluk 636 121. ... Respondents
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 22
W.P.No.26871 of 2021
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 in
Na.Ka.No.6086/2021/A2 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondent authorities to conduct appropriate enquiry before taking
possession pursuant to the above impugned order.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramamoorthy
for M/s.V.Ranjitha
For R1,R3 to R5 : Mr.NN.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Spl.Govt. Pleader.
For R2 : Mr.Naveen Kumar
Govt.Advocate.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned communication dated 13.10.2021 of the third respondent disposing of the representation of the petitioner. The communication order reads as under:
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 2 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 e/f/vz;/6086/2021/M/ehs;/13.10.2021 bghUs; kD mUs;kpF fhsf!;jP!;tuh; jpUf;nfhapy; kw;Wk; mUs;kpF tujuh$g;bgUkhs; jpUf;nfhapy;. tlFkiu. jiythry; tl;lk;. nryk; khtl;lk; jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thfk; bjhlh;ghf tug;bgw;w kD epuhfhpj;jy; bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it jpU/fe;jrhkpgps;is. tlFkiu fpuhkk;. jiythry; (t). nryk;.
foj ehs;/ 08/10/2021/ bghUspy; fhZk; jpUf;nfhapy;. midj;J rKfj;jpdUk; tHpghL bra;aa xU bghJthd jpUf;nfhapyhFk;. nkw;go jpUf;nfhapy; 1974k; Mz;L ,j;Jiw fl;Lg;ghl;od; fPH; bfhz;Ltug;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go jpUf;nfhapy; xU Fwpg;gpl;l rKfj;jpdh; tHpghL bra;af;Toa jpUf;nfhapy; my;y vd;Wk;. nkw;go jpUf;nfhapYf;F jf;fhuhf epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l tlbrd;dpkiy. mUs;kpF ghyRg;ukzpRthkp jpUf;nfhapypd; bray; mYtyh; trk; j';fsplk; cs;s nkw;go jpUf;nfhapypd; epht; hfk;. mira[k; kw;Wk; mirah brhj;Jf;fs; cs;spl;l midj;J bghWg;g[fisa[k; xg;gilf;FkhW bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ (xk;/)jh/ckhnjtp cjtp Mizah;
-cz;ik efy;-cj;jut[g;go-
jiyik vGj;jh;/
2. By the impugned order, the third respondent has informed that the temples viz., Varadaraja Perumal Temple and Kalahastheeswarar Temple do not belong to a particular community and that the said temple came under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the H.R.& C.E.Act, 1959) way back in 1974 and therefore the petitioner should handover the control of assets (both movable and immovable) to the fifth respondent herein who has been appointed as the fit person. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 3 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
3. The impugned order precedes two orders of the fourth respondent dated 03.02.2021 bearing reference br/K/e/f/vz;/3463/2020- 29/M2 and br/K/e/f/vz;/3463/2020-30/M2. By the aforesaid order, the fifth respondent, the Executive Officer of the Vadasennimalai Balasubramaniam Temple was appointed as a “Fit Person” for two temples namely, Varadaraja Perumal Temple and Kalahastheeswarar Temple. Therefore, by another letter dated 13.10.2021 bearing reference e.f.vz;.6086/2021/M2, the fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to handover the control of both the temples to the fifth respondent herein, who was appointed as the fit person for the two temples.
4. The reasons for appointing the fifth respondent as a “Fit Person” vide order dated 03.02.2021 referred to supra are identical and are as under:
“nryk; cjtp Mizah; gphptpy; cs;s gl;oaypy; nruhj jpUf;nfhapy;fspy; guk;giu my;yhj mw';fhtyh;fspd; gjtpf;fhyk; Kotile;j gpd;g[ epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l jf;fhh;fs; bghWg;ngw;fhikahy;. gy;ntW tifahd eph;thfr; rpf;fy;fs; Vw;gl;L. jpUf;nfhapy; Fwpj;j midj;J eph;thf eltof;iffspYk; kpFe;j bjha;t[ Vw;gl;L. Mizah; mYtyfj;jpw;F chpa neuj;jpy; mwpf;if rkh;gg; pf;fg;glhj NHy; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/” ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 4 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 vdnt. jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thf eyd; fUjp. ITMS Fwpj;j gzpfs;. Mjhug; gjpntLfs; jahhpj;jy;. jpUf;nfhapy;fSf;Fr; brhe;jkhd epy';fs; Kiwg;gLj;Jjy;. Mf;fpukpg;g[ mfw;Wjy;. tpiya[ah;e;jitfspd; ghJfhg;g[. jpUf;nfhapy; bjhlh;ghd tHf;Ffs; cs;spl;l eph;thfg; gzpfs; midj;Jk; nkw;bfhs;Sk; bghUl;L. guk;giu my;yhj mw';fhtyh;fs; epakdk; bra;ag;gLk; tiu. jw;fhypf Vw;ghlhf eph;thf eyd; fUjpa[k; jpUf;nfhapy; brhj;Jf;fs; ghJfhf;ft[k;. jkpH;ehL ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw rl;lk; 1959(jkpH;ehL rl;lk; 22/1959) kw;Wk; jpU;jjg;gl;l rl;lk; 39/1996 y; tiuaWf;fg;gl;l gphpt[ 47 kw;Wk; 49 Mfpatw;wpy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhu';fspd;go gpd;tUk; tpgug;goahd jpUf;nfhapYf;F mjd; vjpnu Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ,yhfh mYtyiu jf;fhuhf epakdk; bra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/”
5. The above order states that after the temporary, non-hereditary trustee, appointed expired various administrative problems have arisen. No prejudicial report were being filed before the Commissioner in time. Therefore, in the interest of the temple administration and in order to carry out all the administrative tasks including ITMS, preparation of registers, regularization of lands belonging to the temples, removal of encroachments, protection of valuables of the temples, conduct of cases related to the temple and till the appointment of non-hereditary trustees, and to protect other such interests of the temple, a fit person was being appointed as a temporary arrangement in the exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 47 and 49 of the H.R & C.E. Act, 1959 and the amended Act 39/1996.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 5 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
6. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition indicates that the land comprised in Old Survey No.56 and New Survey No.41/3 belonged to the great grandfather of the petitioner and in the aforesaid land the petitioner's family had constructed Kalahastheeswarar Swami Temple and Varadaraja Perumal Temple by investing money out of their pocket and out of donations received from the members of the petitioner's Pillai community and other few community members namely Konar, Udayar, Gounder and Jangamar.
7. It is submitted that the temple is maintained by the petitioner's family members using the contributions from these communities. The salaries to the temple staffs including the priest, sweepers and others are paid out of the contributions and collections from the temple.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the electricity bill and other statutory charges are also paid in the individual name of the petitioner Kandasami Pillai and that the petitioner has spent around Rs.80 lakhs which includes donations received from the members of these communities for the renovation of the temple. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 6 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that their temple is a private temple which was built out of the donations received from donors of the temple and was intended only for members of the petitioner's community and few other communities viz., Konar, Udayar, Gounder and Jangamar.
10. It is submitted that in view of the above, the worship being peculiar to these communities, the petitioner is entitled to exercise right under Article 26 the Constitution of India as a denomination temple.
11. A reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Mittal Etc. Etc Vs. Union of India and Ors, 1983 AIR 1, 1983 SCR (1) 729, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expatiated the test to be followed by Courts for determining whether a temple falls within the meaning of the expression “Religious Denomination” under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 7 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
12. It is further submitted that the powers of the HR & CE Department are limited and therefore appointment of the fifth respondent as a Fit Person under Section 49 of the HR & CE, Act 1959 was unwarranted.
13. It is further submitted that from time immemorial the temple has been under the control of the members of the petitioner's family and it is the petitioner's family who have been controlling and managing the affairs of the temple.
14. It is therefore submitted that the appointment of the fifth respondent as a “ Fit Person” by the fourth respondent is liable to be interfered.
15. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any other person other than the fifth respondent, who is a Government Servant, may be appointed as a Fit Person from and out of the petitioner's community.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 8 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the patta granted in favour of the temple to substantiate that the land in question was obtained by the petitioner's grand father and during his life time and that is how these temples were constructed.
17. Opposing the prayer, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits. It is submitted that order appointing the fifth respondent as a “Fit Person” vide orders dated 03.02.2021 bearing reference br/K/e/f/vz;/3463/2020-29/M2 and br/K/e/f/vz;/3463/2020- 30/M2 have not been challenged. Even if the application for amending the prayer challenging the order of appointment; is allowed, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. That apart, it is submitted that one of the member belonging to the petitioner's family namely one A.Sambath Kumar had also filed a Crl.O.P.No.18302 of 2021 for the following relief:
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 9 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 “This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to lock and seal the temples namely Kalahatheswara Swamy Temple and Varatharaja Perumal Temple which is situated in Vadakumarai Village, Thalaivasal Taluk Salem District and not permit any public to worship in the temple until disposal of the peace committee proceedings dated 17.09.2021 made in Na.Ka.No.917/2021/A1 on the file of the third respondent.
2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that there is a dispute with regard to worship between various community people and therefore the matter has been referred to Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting enquiry and the same is pending. He further submitted that the above temples are listed temples, which comes under Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department.
3. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to approach the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE, Salem for appropriate remedy.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.”
19. It is submitted that the petitioner's temple is under lock and seal since November 2021 and the devotees are not being allowed to offer their prayers in the Kalahastheeswarar Swami Temple. It is submitted that caste discrimination is being practiced by the members of ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 10 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 the petitioner's family and the said practice offends several provisions of the Constitution as also the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization, Act, 1947.
20. It is further submitted that the averments filed in support of the present writ petition itself indicates that the attempt is to corner the lands of the temples as a private temple.
21. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not produced an iota of evidence to substantiate that the temple is a “denomination temple” within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
22. In any event, the petitioner should have filed a suit, if it is the case of the petitioner that the temple was a “denomination temple”. It is submitted that the above arguments advanced by the petitioner is to merely stave off the authorities under HR & CE Act from exercising their power under the HR & CE, Act, 1959.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 11 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
23. That apart, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents has also produced documents dating back from 1974 to indicate that the temple in question came within the purview of the HR & CE, Act, 1959 and therefore, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to turn around and state that the HR & CE Department cannot have any say in the administration of the temple, particularly when the evil of caste discrimination is being practiced by the petitioner and his family members.
24. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State of Bombay and Ors, 1954 SCR 1055 :
AIR 1954 SC 388 rendered in the context of Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. A reference was made to paragraph 17 of the said order is extracted below:
“17. Section 37 has been objected to on the ground that an unrestricted right of entry in any religious premises might offend the sentiments of the followers of that religion; but the section has expressly provided that the officers making the entry shall give reasonable notice of their intended entry to the trustees ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 12 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 and shall have due regard to the religious practice and usages of the trust. Objection has next been taken to Section 44 and 47 of the Act. Section 44 lays down that the Charity Commissioner can be appointed to act as trustee of a public trust by a court of competent jurisdiction or by the author of the trust. If the author of the trust chooses to appoint the Charity Commissioner a trustee, no objection can possibly be taken to such action; but if the court is authorised to make such appointment, the provisions of this Section in the general form as it stands appear to us to be open to serious objection. If we take for example the case of a religious institution like a math at the head of which stands the Mathadhipati or spiritual superior, the Mathadhipati is a trustee according to the provisions of the Act and if the Court is competent to appoint the Charity Commissioner as a superior of a math, the result would be disastrous and it would amount to a flagrant violation of the constitutional guarantee which religions institutions' have under the constitution in regard to the management of its religious affairs. This is not a secular affair at all relating to the administration of the trust property. The very object of a math is to maintain a competent line of religious teachers for propagating and strengthening the religious doctrines of a particular order or sect and as there could be no math without a mathadhipati as its spiritual head, the substitution of the Charity Commissioner for the superior would mean a destruction of the institution altogether. The evil is further aggravated by the provision of clause (4) of the Section which says that the Charity Commissioner shall be the sole trustee and it shall not be lawful to appoint him him as a trustee along with other persons. In our opinion, the provision of Section 44 relating to the appointment of the Charity Commissioner as a trustee of any public trust by the court without any reservation in regard to religious institutions like temples and maths is unconstitutional and must be ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 13 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 held to be void. The very same objections will apply to the provisions of clauses (3) to (6) of Section 47. The court can certainly be empowered to appoint a trustee to fill up a vacancy caused by any of the reasons mentioned in Section 47(1), and it is quite a salutary principle that in making the appointment the court should have regard to matters specified in clause (4) of Section 47; but the provision of clause (3) to the extent that it authorises the court to appoint the Charity Commissioner as the trustee and who according to the provisions of clause (5) is to be the sole trustee – cannot be regarded as valid in regard to religious institutions of the type we have just indicated. To allow the Charity Commissioner to function as the Shebait of a temple or the superior of a math would certainly amount to interference with the religious affairs of this institution. We hold accordingly that the provisions of clauses (3) to (6) of Section 47 to the extent that they relate to the appointment of the Charity Commissioner as a trustee of a religious trust like temple and Math are invalid. If these provisions of Section 47 are eliminated, no objection can be taken to the provision of Section 48 as it stands. This section will in that event be confined only to cases where the Charity Commissioner has been appointed a trustee by the author of the trust himself and the administrative charges provided by this section can certainly be levied on the trust.”
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew a parallel between Section 37 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and Section 49 of the HR & CE, Act and therefore, submits that the reasoning of the Hon'ble ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 14 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 Supreme Court in para 17 from the said decision would apply mutatis mutandis.
26. The learned Special Government Pleader has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of A.Krishnan Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE in W.P.(MD).No.8193 of 2018 vide order dated 21.04.2022, wherein while dealing with an identical situation, this Court had concluded that the character of a temple may change over a period of time, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, under Section 23 of the HR & CE Act, 1959, the Commissioner was entitled to exercise powers of administration of Religious Endowments, Institutions etc.,
27. It is submitted that in the present case there was a decree passed under the provisions of the erstwhile Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. It was held that after the passing of the HR & CE, Act, 1959, the decrees of the Courts passed prior to the enactment of 1959 Act will have to be in compliance with the provisions of the Act and ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 therefore, liberty was given to the petitioner therein to file an application under Section 63(a) of the HR & CE, Act within a period of two weeks.
28. It is submitted that in the present case, admittedly, there is not even a decree in favour of the petitioner. That apart, the records filed by the petitioner as also by the respondent would indicate that this is a fit case for appointing a “Fit Person”.
29. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. I have also perused the materials available on record.
30. After the case was listed for final hearing, the petitioner informed that an application has been filed for amending the prayer. However, the said application is not before this Court.
31. There is no merits in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the fifth respondent as the “fit ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 16 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 person” vide order dated 03.02.2021 bearing Reference br/K/e/f/vz;/3463/2020-29/M2 and br/K/e/f/vz;/3463/2020-30/M2; of the fourth respondent.
32. The stand of the petitioner that the subject temple is a “denomination temple” within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India cannot be countenanced. The issue as to whether the subject temples are a “denomination temple” within the meaning of Article 26 also cannot be decided in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner should file a suit to declare that the subject temples are a “denomination temple” in accordance with the law of limitation.
33. That apart, there are sufficient indications that the subject temples have been under the purview of the Tamil Nadu H.R & C.E.Department from 1974 and that non-hereditary trustees were appointed and there were several lapses on their part in terms of large scale misappropriation of funds and alienation of assets. Taking into ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 17 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 consideration these factors, a decision was taken to appoint the fifth respondent as a “fit person”.
34. In any event, if it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to any independent rights, it is also open for the petitioner to either approach the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 (a) of the H.R.& C.E. Act, 1959 for appropriate relief or file a suit to establish that the subject temple is a religious 'denomination temple'.
35. Further, facts on record prima facie indicates that the action of the petitioner and his family members have been abusive and in violation of provisions of Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 . Therefore, I do not find any merits in the present writ petition.
36. After, the order was pronounced in the open Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 63(a) of the H.R.& C.E. Act, 1959 before the Joint Commissioner for declaring the temple as denomination ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 18 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 temple. It is therefore open for the petitioner to pursue with the same. On this count also, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
37. I therefore leave it open to the petitioner to work out remedy in accordance with law to establish that the subject temples are a “denomination temple” within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The Joint Commissioner before whom purportedly, a petition has been filed under Section 63(a) of the H.R.& C.E.Act, by the petitioner, may also endeavour to pass an order on merits, preferably, within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
38. During the interregnum, the fourth respondent shall take steps within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to appoint non-hereditary trustee under Chapter III in terms of Section 47 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959. This exercise shall be carried out by the respondents strictly in accordance with H.R.& C.E. Act and Rule.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 19 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021
39. Considering the fact that Kalahastheeswarar Swami Temple has been under lock and seal, the fifth respondent is permitted to open the temple with the help of local police for the public to offer their prayers regularly. If required, the fifth respondent may take the assistance of local police to ensure that there is no untoward incident or breakdown of law and order within the temple precinct and if required may also install CCTV to monitor the movements within the temple precinct.
40. This writ petition stands dismissed with the above observation and liberty. No costs.
05.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking : Non Speaking Order kkd ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 20 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 To
1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem District 636 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kottai Mariamman Temple, Salem 636 001.
4.The Assistant Commissioner, Kottai Mariamman Temple, Salem 636 001.
5.The Executive Officer, Vadasennimalai Balasubramaniam Temple, Vadasennimamali, Thalaivasal Taluk 636 121. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 21 of 22 W.P.No.26871 of 2021 C.SARAVANAN,J.
kkd Pre-delivery Order in W.P.No.26871 of 2021 05.09.2022 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 22 of 22