Madras High Court
Balasubramanian vs / on 18 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.17745 of 2025
1.Balasubramanian
2.P.Marimuthu ... Petitioners
/vs./
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Virudhunagar.
4.P.Shanmugaganapathy
5.R.Sundarajan
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
6.K.Dhanarajan
7.S.Senthil Sankaranarayanan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st
respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.56037/2021/A2 dated 31.07.2025 and quash the
same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently thereby directing the 1st
respondent to restore the petitioner's names as trustees as per order in
Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 56037/2021/A2 dated 15.07.2025.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For R1 to R3 : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 to R7 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
Mr.SS.Madhavan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents 4 to 7.
2/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
2.The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 31.07.2025 bearing Ref.No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.56037/2021/A2 and to direct the first respondent to restore the petitioners' names as trustees as per the order passed in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 56037/2021/A2 dated 15.07.2025.
3.This is the fifth round of litigation before this Court.
4.The dispute pertains to the appointment of non-hereditary trustee, pursuant to a scheme decree in O.S.No.49 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai, which was decreed on 31.03.1993.
5.By the impugned order, order passed on 15.07.2025 bearing Ref.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.56037/2021/A2, has been withdrawn, in the light of the subsequent development, details of which will be narrated in the ensuing paragraphs.
6.Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
3/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
7.The order dated 15.07.2025 bearing Ref.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 56037/2021/A2 and the impugned order, dated 31.07.2025 bearing Ref.No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.56037/2021/A2 have been passed after the detailed order came to be passed in the fourth round of litigation before this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos.16783 and 23281 of 2023 and 9654 of 2024.
8.The petitioners herein, namely, Balasubramanian and P.Marimuthu were the private respondents in W.P.(MD) No.9654 of 2024. W.P.(MD) No.16783 of 2023 was filed by the respondents 4 and 5 herein. W.P.(MD) No.23281 of 2023 was filed by one Kannan.
9.This Court, by a common order, dated 28.01.2025, had passed the following order in W.P.(MD) Nos.16783 and 23281 of 2023 and 9654 of 2024:-
10/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
13.In such an event, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:-
(a)W.P.(MD).No.9654 of 2024 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(b)The Commissioner shall consider the Reports of the Joint Commissioner dated 31.03.2023 and 05.07.2023 and appoint the candidates who had secured highest votes and who had not suffered disqualification in terms of Section 26 of the HR&CE Act within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and permit them to occupy the Office of heriditary trustee for a period of three (3) years from the date of such appointment.
(c)W.P.(MD).No.23281 of 2023 is dismissed as infructuous.
(d)W.P.(MD).No.16783 of 2023 is also dismissed as it was a consequential action as this Court had found that the petitioners are not the trustees of the temple.
(e) The Joint Commissioner is directed to appoint a fit person forthwith who shall take charge of the affairs of the temple and if any oppositions are made to the functioning of the fit person, the same shall be addressed to the concerned jurisdictional police who shall take immediate steps to put the fit person in management of the affairs of the temple within a period of 48 hours of such complaint by the fit person appointed by the Joint Commissioner. The appointment of the fit person shall be subject to the decision taken by the Commissioner, pursuant to the direction issued in Clause (b) above.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
10.There is a long history and a power struggle within the members of the Saliar community of Puliyampatti village, Aruppukottai Town, to control the affairs of the subject temple, namely, Mahali Amman Vagayara Temple.
11/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
11.For some time, the temple was managed pursuant to the decisions during the peace committee meetings. By an order, dated 15.10.2020, in W.P.(MD) No. 14398 of 2020, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed as an Election Officer to hold election to the post of 5 non-hereditary trustees for the said temple.
12.It appears that the election was held in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner on 27.12.2020, where, about 15 persons had contested. Following 5 persons were declared to have secured highest votes.
“1.j.MWKfk;.
2.Ngh.rz;Kf fzgjp
3.uh.Re;ju;uh[d;
4.vd;.V.Rg;gpukzpak;
5.F.jduh[d;.”
13.This declaration of result was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.870 of 2021 and 1719 of 2022 at the behest of Elambarithi and P.Shanmuganapathy respectively.
12/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
14.In W.P.(MD) No.870 of 2021, the election that was held on 27.12.2020 was the subject matter of challenge.
15.W.P.(MD) No.1719 of 2022 was filed for a Mandamus to direct the Official respondents therein, namely, the Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application, dated 24.06.2021 to record the names of the trustees elected for Arulmigu Mahaliamman Vagaira Temples, Puliyampatti, Aruppukottai, pursuant to the election held in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner on 27.12.2020, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, dated 15.10.2020 in W.P.(MD) No. 14398 of 2020.
16.By a common order dated 23.02.2022, the Court took note of the fact that the Joint Commissioner was seized of the issue as to whether the election was conducted in a proper manner and whether the respondents herein were disqualified on account of any Clauses in the scheme decree and therefore, the Joint Commissioner was directed to pass appropriate orders regarding the election held on 27.12.2020 pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2020 within a period of four 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
17.Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Commissioner appointed 3 persons, namely, N.A.Subramaniam, K.Danarajan and V.Periyasami, as non-hereditary trustees. The Government appointed two persons, namely, Balasubramanian and P.Marimuthu, the petitioners herein, as non-hereditary trustees. This was the subject matter of challenge for the third time before this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.
17653, 25967 and 26550 of 2022.
18.The aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:-
“W.P.(MD) No.17653 of 2022 has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding dated 20.07.2022 of the second respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.56037/2021(1)/2021 A1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to record the names of petitioner and respondents 5, 6, 9 and 10 as Board of trustees of Arulmighu Mahali Amman Vagayara Temples, Puliyampatti, Aruppukottai and the petitioner herein as the Chairman of the Board of trustee of the said temple.
W.P.(MD) No.25967 of 2022 has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned GO dated 19.10.2022 of the first respondent in G.O.(P).No. 204 Tourism, Culture and Charitable Endowments (CE 3-1) Department and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to record the names of trustees elected and declared by the Advocates Commissioner based on the orders of this Court, dated 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 15.10.2020 in W.P. (MD)No.14398 of 2020 as Board of trustees of Arulmighu Mahali Amman Vagayara Temples, Puliyampatti, Aruppukottai and the Petitioner herein as the Chairman of the Board of Trustee of the said temple.
W.P.(MD) No.26550 of 2022 has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned GO dated 19.10.2022 of the first respondent in G.O.(P).No. 204 Tourism, Culture and Charitable Endowments (CE 3-1) Department and impugned proceeding dated 20.07.2022 of the second respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.56037/2021(1)/2021 A1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to record the names of Petitioners and respondents 6 and 10 as Board of trustees of Arulmighu Mahali Amman Vagayara Temples, Puliyampatti, Aruppukottai and the Petitioner herein as the Chairman of the Board of Trustee of the said temple.”
19.After considering the case of the respective petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, the Court observed as under:-
“11.It is submitted that Section 26 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act would apply only to existing trustees and may not be applicable prior to appointment as a Trustee. To answer the above question, one may have to lookout to Section 26 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which reads as under:
''26) Disqualification of trustees:-
(1) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of any religious institution or endowment,-
(a) .......
(b) .......'' A reading of the relevant portion of Section 26 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, leaves no room for any doubt that the disqualifications enumerated therein would apply not 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 only for the existing trustees but also for those who are to be appointed as trustees. In view of the same, above submission is untenable.
12.Secondly, it is difficult to agree with the above submission inasmuch as the person, who have secured maximum number of votes would have a legitimate expectation of being entitled/considered for appointment and thus if found to be disqualified the authority, ought to put them on notice. In any view, the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD)No.870 of 2021 had directed that the parties must be put on notice before proceeding further. It is thus clear that the Petitioners ought to be put on notice of the disqualification which suffers in terms of Section 26 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for them to respond, failure to put them on notice would prove fatal.
13.It is submitted by both sides that it may be difficult to sustain the order of the Secretary, who has proceeded on a misconception that Section 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act may apply. It is the admitted case of all the parties that Section 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act may not apply to the present case. Therefore, the order of the Secretary will have to be set aside.
14.In view of the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the Joint Commissioner to put the Petitioners on notice and thereafter, prepare a report, which shall be forwarded to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department shall consider the same and pass order after affording a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners and any other stake holders/interested parties, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be an order of status quo until the above exercise is completed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
20.Pursuant to the aforesaid order, dated 29.11.2022, the Commissioner, HR & CE, namely, the first respondent herein, cancelled the election that was 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025 held on 27.12.2020, pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2020 in W.P.(MD) No. 14398 of 2020, which was later the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD) Nos.
16783 and 23281 of 2023 and 9654 of 2024, content of which has already been extracted above.
21.Reading of the order dated 15.07.2025, which stands withdrawn by the impugned order, dated 31.07.2025 bearing Ref.No.Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 56037/2021/A2 of the first respondent, in the light of the initiation of the contempt proceedings in Cont.P.(MD) No.1787 of 2025 shows that the respondent has realized the mistake committed and has thus withdrawn the order, dated 15.07.2025 and has thus, passed the impugned order.
22.Pursuant to the impugned order, the persons at serial Nos.2 to 6, who have secured highest votes, have now been recognized as non-hereditary trustees as Mr.Arumugam has attracted disqualification under Section 26 of the TN HR & CE Act, 1959, on account of his involvement in conviction for the offences under the Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985.
17/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
23.The petitioners herein, who had secured only 1297 and 1279 votes respectively are therefore not entitled to question the appointment made by the first respondent, vide impugned order dated 31.07.2025. The order of the Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.16783 and 23281 of 2023 and 9654 of 2024, dated 28.01.2025 is clear and the said order has not been reversed till date.
24.At this stage, it is informed that the said order was the subject matter of Review in Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.27 of 2025, which was also dismissed.
25.That being the case, the challenge made by the petitioners has to fail and accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 18.08.2025
Internet : Yes / No
mm
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Virudhunagar.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.22632 of 2025
18.08.2025
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:36 pm )