Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY in P.Ezhumalai vs The Secretary To Government on 17 November, 2023Matching Fragments
2. W.P. No.22157 of 2025 has been filed to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings in Nada.Na.Ka.No.7792/2006/A2, dated 06.03.2006, on the file of the 3rd respondent on the ground that there is no definite period of office is prescribed in the order as per the judgment in Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs The state of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 and to consequently, direct the 4 th respondent/Executive Officer to hand over management of the temple to the trustees as per the Scheme referred herein above.
11. Lastly with regard to the other writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 755, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Executive Officer cannot be appointed under Section 45 of the Act for an indefinite period of time. He would therefore pray for both the writ petitions being https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 05:56:13 pm ) WP.Nos.17419 & 22157 of 2025 allowed.
14. The learned Special Government Pleader would further state that the initial appointment of the Executive Officer was only at the request of the then Trustees and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to now contend that the appointment of the Executive Officer is illegal or that the indefinite period of time fixed is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more specifically in Dr.Subramanian Swamy's case. The learned Special Government Pleader also relies on the Conditions for Appointment of the Executive Officers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 05:56:13 pm ) WP.Nos.17419 & 22157 of 2025 Rule, 2015, which has come into force after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy's case (referred herein supra). Inviting my attention to Rule 3(viii), he would submit that the appointment of Executive Officer cannot be challenged, since the Trustees themselves have opted for appointment of an Executive Officer to assist them in better administration and development of the Religious Institution. According to Mr.Arun Natarajan, when the Trustees have not withdrawn the request till date, the appointment of Executive Officer cannot be challenged by the petitioners
15. He would also rely on Rule 10(1) of the said Rules, which stipulates an exception that the Rules would not adversely affect the powers of the Executive Officer, who has been holding the post, immediately before the date of commencement of the Rules.
16. Insofar as the second Writ Petition, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the Fit Person was appointed way back in March 2006 and subsequently, non-hereditary trustees, as per the Scheme were appointed by order dated 30.01.2009 and Fit Person has handed over the charge to the Regular Trustees even in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 05:56:13 pm ) WP.Nos.17419 & 22157 of 2025 August 2009. In view of the same, he contends that nothing survives for consideration insofar as the W.P.No.22157 of 2025 is concerned. He would also submit that however, the Executive Officer having been appointed only at the request of the then Trustees themselves and when he is continuing to manage the temple, along with the other Trustees, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Dr.Subramanian Swamy's case (referred herein supra) or subsequent Rules will also not entitle the petitioner to relief in W.P. No.22157 of 2025.