Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: samadhi in The Executive Officer vs Maha Thejo Mandala Sabha on 27 March, 2024Matching Fragments
2.8. From 1929 to 1971, it seems that, the pooja was conducted or the festival was conducted by sabha / mandalam. At one point of time, a notice had been issued on 05.11.1971 by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (in short "the HR & CE Department) who wanted to take possession of the Sri Pamban Kumara Gurudasar Swamigal Samadhi Koil at Thiruvanmiyur and its property over which the above samadhi or tomb is situated. The said move of the HR & CE Department was questioned by the Pamban Kumara Gurudasar Samadhi Koil represented by its President, T.T.Kuppusami Chettiar in W.P.No.3501 of 1971.
77. Admittedly, the samadhi of Chinnasami Josier was located adjacent to Srimath Pamban Swamigal. When Chinnasami Josier was not spoken to be a saintly person the Gurupooja performed for Srimath Pamban Swamigal cannot be considered as the celebration of pojja to the tomb of Chinnasami https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2191 of 2018, 2316 of 2018, 2390 of 2018, C.M.P.No.9847 of 2019 in W.A.Sr.No.48132 of 2019 Josier also. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that poojas were done for the Chinnasami Josier along with the poojas done to the samadhi of Swamigal. In the aforesaid circumstances, the removal of the word samadhi from the definition Section 6 (18) of the Act regarding the description of religious institution is beneficial to the 1st defendant Sabha since the samadhi of Chinnasami Josier was adjacently present along with the samadhi of Swamigal. When the performance of guru pooja was admitted by both sides, the samadhi of Srimath Swamigal is predominant at the institution premises and the idols and other festivals conducted by the Sabha would be only adjuncts to the said samadhi and the Guru pooja."
M.RAJARAM, Secretary to Government."
24. Therefore from 27.06.2012, the said Section 6(18) has got https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2191 of 2018, 2316 of 2018, 2390 of 2018, C.M.P.No.9847 of 2019 in W.A.Sr.No.48132 of 2019 amended and the original position prior to 01.04.2008 has got restored and the word samadhi or brindhavan had been included within the extended meaning of religious institution. Therefore from 27.06.2012, the religious institution means a math, temple or specific endowment and include a samadhi or brindhavan. Samadhi has been explained that, samadhi means a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu or saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship.
26. Assuming that it is not at all a temple, it is only a samadhi of swamiji, even then, the samadhi can very well be brought under the meaning of religious institution under section 6(18) of the Act. Merely because an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2191 of 2018, 2316 of 2018, 2390 of 2018, C.M.P.No.9847 of 2019 in W.A.Sr.No.48132 of 2019 amendment had been taken place during the year 2008, the learned Judge had taken note of such amendment w.e.f., 01.04.2008, therefore when he wrote the Judgment on 21.12.2009, as per the amendment dated 01.04.2008 the word samadhi since has been removed from the definition section 6(18), he had come to such a conclusion. However, from 27.06.2012, the word samadhi again has been brought back, thereby the original position of the definition section 6(18) since has been restored, even then the arguments advanced by various group of people claimed to be the mandala sabha, whether can be accepted or not is also another question.