Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Sri Saranga Desikendra Swamigal Math vs The Commissioner on 18 September, 2020

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                                              W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 18.09.2020

                                                   CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                        W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016
                                     and W.M.P.(MD)No.12189 of 2016

                 Sri Saranga Desikendra Swamigal Math,
                 represented by Sri-la-Sri Neelakanda Saranga Desikendra Swamigal,
                 Through Manager cum Secretary,
                 S.Selvakumar, Head Post Office Road,
                 Kumbakonam.                                               ... Petitioner

                                                     Vs.

                 1.The Commissioner,
                   Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
                   Nungambakkam High Road,
                   Chennai-600 034.

                 2.The Additional Commissioner (General),
                   Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
                   Nungambakkam High Road,
                   Chennai-600 034.

                 3.The Assistant Commissioner
                   Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
                   Kumbakonam.                                       ... Respondents

                 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                 for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record of
                 the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.62882-1/2006/S-2,
                 dated 27.06.2016 and quash the same and further forbearing the
                 respondents, their Officers, Servants, etc., from interfering with the
                 management of the Sri Saranga Desikendra Swamigal Math.


                             For Petitioner         : Mr.Meenakshisundaram

http://www.judis.nic.in
                 1/6
                                                                               W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016



                               For Respondents       : Mr.K.Chellapandiyan,
                                                       Additional Advocate General,
                                                       Assisted by
                                                       Mr.Lakshmi Prasanna,
                                                       Government Advocate

                             For impleading Respondent : Mr.V.Jeyaprakash,
                                                        for M/S.V.Chandrasekar.


                                                    ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2.Even before commencing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the present Math Head, namely, Sri-la-Sri Neelakanda Saranga Desikendra Swamigal gave an undertaking that the present Head of the Math will not deal with the properties of the Math in violation of the principles laid down in Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In other words, there will not be any alienation of the Math properties. No long term leases will be created.

3.This undertaking given by the petitioner through his learned counsel is placed on record.

http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016

4.What is under challenge in this writ petition is the order, dated 27.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department appointing Interim Administrator for the petitioner Math. Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 reads as under:

60. Arrangements when vacancies occur. - (1) When a vacancy occurs in the office of the trustee of a math or a specific endowment attached to a math and there is a dispute respecting the right of succession to such office, or when such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately, or when the trustee is a minor and has no guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian, or when the trustee is by reason of unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity unable to perform the functions of the trustee, the [Assistant Commissioner] may take such steps and pass such order [as he thinks] proper for the temporary custody and protection of the endowments of the math or of the specific endowment, as the case may be, and shall report the matter forthwith to the [Commissioner].

(2) Upon the receipt of such report, if [the Commissioner], after making such inquiry [as he deems] necessary, is satisfied that an arrangement for the administration of the math and its endowments or of the specific endowment, as the case may be, is necessary, [he shall] make such arrangement [as he thinks fit] until the http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016 disability of the trustee ceases or another trustee succeeds to the office, as the case may be.

(3) In making any such arrangement, [the Commissioner] shall have due regard to the claims of the disciples of the math, if any.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect anything contained in the Tamil Nadu Court of Wards Act, 1902 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1902).

5.In the case on hand, no vacancy has arisen in the Office of the Head of the Math. Secondly, in S.A.(MD)No.1086 of 2006, the decree passed by the Court below removing the Math Head has been set aside.

The contingencies set out in Section 60 of the Act are absent. Therefore, the impugned order cannot survive and the same is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

18.09.2020 Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No gns Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016 To

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

2.The Additional Commissioner (General), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

3.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kumbakonam.

http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

gns W.P.(MD)No.14013 of 2016 18.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6