Madras High Court
A.Krishnamachari vs Secretary To Government on 26 March, 2012
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/03/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.14357 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.Krishnamachari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Secretary to Government, Tamil Cultural and Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34. 3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam, Trichy-6. 4.Mr.Appan Rangachari, Rotation Trustee, Arulmigu Sri Aranganathaswamy Koil, East Chithra Street, Srirangam, Trichy-620 006. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from putting up any new construction, Kalaiarangam in the temple premises of Arulmighu Kattazaghiyasingar temple. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ^For Respondents 1 and 2... Mr.M.Alagudevan Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 ... Mr.K.Govindarajan ******** :ORDER
****** The decision taken by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to construct an auditorium within the temple precincts of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, pursuant to the representation submitted by the local people of Srirangam to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made the petitioner to file this Writ Petition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The petitioner is a Vaishnavite and a permanent resident of Srirangam. According to the petitioner, Srirangam Temple is spread over a large area. The sanctum sanctorum is about 250 feet away from the main entrance. The compound wall is in a very good condition. The northern side of the main entrance was recently demolished by the temple administration, so as to facilitate the movement of lorries and bulldozers. The petitioner came to know that a Kalaiarangam is proposed to be constructed within the temple precincts.
The proposal was mooted by the then Hon'ble Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Since the temple is considered as an ancient monument of architectural significance and important, it is improper to allow new construction within its precincts. In case a Kalaiarangam is constructed, it would affect the serene atmosphere. The sanctity and the sacredness of the temple would also be spoiled by such construction. The temple has taken a decision to spend a sum of Rs.5 crores for the purpose of construction. The temple administration cannot be permitted to spend public money for such an unproductive purpose. Therefore, the petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ to restrain the respondents from putting up the Kalaiarangam.
3. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, in his counter-affidavit, submitted that the people in and around Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple had appealed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during her visit on 19 June, 2011 to construct an auditorium for organizing music concerts, dances, recitals and other programmes. The Hon'ble Chief Minister readily agreed and accordingly, follow-up action was taken for construction of an auditorium in public interest. According to the Commissioner, auditorium would be used only for religious purposes.
4. The Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the Executive Officer, the temple is situated in T.S.No.2194 and the proposed construction is in T.S.No.2193, which has nothing to do with the temple precincts. The Executive Officer further stated that the temple used to organise religious discourses by various Vaishnavits scholars and religious heads. It was only with an intention to provide a proper indoor auditorium, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department mooted a proposal for construction at an estimated cost of Rs.4,75,00,000/-. The proposal is now pending with the Government for approval.
SUBMISSIONS:
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very name Kalaiarangam indicates that all sorts of entertainments including obscene dance would be permitted. This would spoil the temple atmosphere and the pilgrims would be put to hardship. According to the learned counsel, temple funds cannot be used for such illegal purposes. There is no necessity to construct a Kalaiarangam in a temple, like Srirangam. It is nothing but unproductive expenditure. Therefore, a Mandamus should be issued to restrain the respondents from putting up the auditorium.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that Srirangam temple has no separate Kalaiarangam and as such, it was a long felt need of the people of the said area to construct one such auditorium. When a proposal was mooted, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who is also the Legislative Member from that Constituency, readily agreed for the proposal. It cannot be said that the Kalaiarangam would not serve any purpose.
7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple justified the action taken by the temple administration and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to construct an auditorium. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the proposed place is a vacant site and the same has not been used for any useful purpose. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has taken a decision to construct a Kalaiarangam and in fact, it was only at the instance of the local people that such a proposal was mooted. The temple is having necessary resources to put up the building and after construction, it would be given for discourses and other religious meetings.
FACTUAL ANALYSIS:
8. There is no dispute that Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam is a famous temple attracting devotees both from India and abroad. Srirangam, "the abode of Lord Renganatha" is stated to be the first among 108 Divyadesams. The temple is in possession of large area of land in and around the temple complex.
9. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was elected to the Legislative Assembly from Srirangam Constituency. The Chief Minister appears to have visited Srirangam on 19 June, 2011. The people residing in and around Srirangam made an appeal to the Chief Minister to construct an auditorium at Srirangam. The Chief Minister, having found that it was a long felt need of the people of the said area, readily agreed and accordingly, the proposal was mooted. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department considered the issue in extenso. The Department found that the temple is having sufficient land to construct the Kalaiarangam. The site which was all along kept as a vacant plot was inspected by the officials and having satisfied that the place could be profitably used for a public purpose, the officials forwarded the proposal to the Government. The Government is now seized of the matter.
10. The petitioner appears to have been moved on account of the name given to the proposed building. Since the building is known as 'Kalaiarangam', the petitioner was under the mistaken impression that only dance would be allowed to be performed. The proposed building is essentially an auditorium and it would cater the needs of local people. The petitioner has no case that there are sufficient auditoriums in and around Srirangam owned by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department or local body. It is true that there are auditoriums owned by private individuals in and around Trichy. The common people would not be in a position to hire such auditoriums in view of the exorbitant amount fixed by the owners of such buildings.
11. When the temple is having sufficient land and enough funds, necessarily, the temple should take up such constructive activities in the interest of the devotees and general public.
12. Srirangam is a Temple town. The town requires better facilities. The temple town would flourish in case developmental activities are taken up. We have the examples of the Townships of 'Thirupathi and Guruvayoor'. The presence of the temple in those places helped the town to develop on a large scale.
13. When the other parts of the city shows tremendous development, Srirangam also should get their due share in such developments. This temple town was neglected in the past. That should not happen in future.
14. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, being the Member of the Legislative Assembly from Srirangam, thought it fit to take various measures to improve the living conditions of people of this area and the pilgrims in particular. The construction of a Kalaiarangam is one among such developmental activities. The amount earmarked for this purpose cannot be treated as a wasteful expenditure. The ultimate beneficiaries are only the local people. It is always possible for the rich people to organise their functions by hiring private auditoriums. However, that is not the case of poor people.
15. The Executive Officer, in his counter-affidavit, very clearly stated that the construction of auditorium would not affect the temple in any manner. The petitioner has not produced supporting materials to prove that the construction would be a source of nuisance to the pilgrims. In fact, it was only at the instance of the pilgrims and the local people, the department itself initiated action. Therefore, it cannot be said that the temple administration and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department were not correct in taking a decision to construct a Kalaiarangam.
16. When the State with a social commitment, accepts the genuine demand of its people, such decisions should be respected.
17. The primary obstacle which stands in the way of development appears to be the traditional approach of our people to the social issues that development would result in breaking the custom and values. The side effects alone cannot be a determining factor while assessing the merits of a particular scheme. The need of the hour is all round development not confined to specified areas. The Villages and Panchayaths should develop along with cities and metropolitan areas. In case we resist such developments on the ground that it would be inconsistent with the settled customs, usages and practices, such places would remain as it is, without any kind of advancement.
18. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the temple administration are the best judges to decide as to how the income of temple should be spent. Similarly, the question as to whether the temple requires an auditorium is also essentially an issue to be considered by the authorities. When the authorities have taken a conscious decision to construct an auditorium with the funds available with the temple, it is not for the Courts to examine the pros and cons of such decisions and to substitute its opinion. Judicial review is directed against the decision making process and not against the decision as such. Even if on the basis of available materials, two views are possible, the view taken by the authorities, who are familiar with the administration, should get precedence.
19. The construction of Kalaiarangam is not a new concept in our temples. Almost all the temples having sufficient income to meet routine expenses and surplus funds after defraying such expenses have now constructed auditoriums to undertake various religious activities. The temples should not be treated as places of worship alone. It should be converted into a Centre of learning. The people have now realised the importance of conducting religious discourses, Geetha chanting and other related religious activities. There should be an auditorium to organise such activities. Therefore, construction of an auditorium cannot be treated as a non-religious purpose, unconnected with the temple affairs.
20. Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 permits the religious institutions to use its funds for securing the health, safety or convenience of the pilgrims or worshippers. Therefore, the Statute also permits the temple to take up such welfare measures and activities in the interest of public.
21. The factual matrix clearly shows that Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple Administration and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department have taken the decision to construct the Kalaiarangam only in the interest of pilgrims and general public. The decision was taken in larger public interest. The individual views of the petitioner should give way to the larger public interest. Therefore, I am of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
22. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
SML To
1.The Secretary to Government, Tamil Cultural and Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai-34.
3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam, Trichy-6.