Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy's case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fit person cannot be appointed, without his period or tenure being mentioned in the order of the proceeding. He would therefore contend that the order even on this ground is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal. In the same context, he would also state that in terms of functioning of the Board of Trustees Rules, moreso, proviso to Rule 2(1) of the Rules framed under the 1959 Act, the maximum period for which a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:52 pm )  temple can be without a Board of Trustees is only 90 days and therefore, even assuming the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to appoint a fit person, even then the fit person cannot be allowed to continue beyond the period of 90 days. He would therefore submit that the very appointment of the fit person has suffered a natural death and he had become functus officio.

4.Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, in Civil Appeal No.10620 of 2013 dated 06.01.2014.

5.Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 388.

11.Per contra, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would first and foremost submit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:52 pm )  that the petitioner has no locus to even file the writ petition and the temple in question is only a public temple and there has been no declaration of any competent civil, declaring the denominational status of the said temple. In such circumstances, he would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and if at all the writ petitioner is an interested party or aggrieved by the appointment of the fit person, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to make an application before the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 of the Act. He would further state that the respondents have got information that there has been mismanagement of funds collected from the public and only under such circumstances, the proceedings were initiated and the order came to be passed under Section 49 of the Act, appointing a fit person. He would therefore, state that the writ petition is not maintainable.

24.In Dr.Subramanian Swamy's case, cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though Section 107 of the Act protects religious denominations and the order appointing the Executive Officer can only be for a prescribed time period and once the evil is remedied, then the management should be handed over to the person concerned immediately. In short, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that super-session of rights of administration cannot be of permanent and enduring in nature and has to be coterminous with the removal of the ill-effects of maladministration.