Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.1. Further, the appointment of the Executive Officer by the HR & CE Department to the plaintiff - Temple is bad in the eyes of law in view of Subramanian Swamy’s Case (infra). Hence, equally on this ground also, the Suit for recovery of possession filed by Temple https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis represented by its Executive Officer, that too without due permission from the HR & CE Department, is not maintainable. In support of the above submissions, he would rely on the following Judgments:

(i) Subramanian Swamy’s Case - Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy - vs - State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75;

(ii) Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam’s Case - Judgment of this Court in Arulmigu Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam represented by its Heriditary Trustee -vs-The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 946.

(i) Syed Ahmed Hussain’s Case - Judgment of this Court in Syed Ahmed Hussain and Others - vs - Arulmighu Ekambareshwarar Thirukoil represented by its Executive Officer made in S.A.No.600 of 2017 on November 9, 2023, bearing the Neutral Citation - 2023 MHC 5293].

12. In Subramanian Swamy’s Case, the validity of appointment of Executive Officer to Chidambaram Sri Sabanayagar Temple was challenged by the Podu Dikshidars. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Temple therein is a denominational temple and Podu Dikshidars, who are having the management rights secured in them by an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis earlier Court Decree and have been managing the Temple as well as Temple’s properties for time immemorial, constitute a religious denomination in themselves, and therefore, their rights are to be preserved and protected from invasion of the State as guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

13. In Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam’s Case, the challenge was to the validity of show cause notice issued by HR & CE Department calling upon the petitioner therein to explain why an Executive Officer should not be appointed for a period of one year. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to Subramanian Swamy’s Case, held therein that unless rules are framed by the government and conditions / circumstances prescribed therein are satisfied, the Commissioner of HR & CE Department shall have no power to appoint any Executive Officer irrespective of whether it is a religious denominational temple or not.