Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent it has been stated that the allegations made by the petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, have been denied. The locus standi of the petitioners to file the Writ Petition has also been questioned. It has been further stated that in the year, 1994, an Executive Officer had been appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the said appointment had been challenged by the erstwhile trustees of the temple, in W.P.No.13210 of 1994. In the Writ Appeal preferred by the Trustees, in W.A.No.1324 of 1994, challenging the vacation of the interim order, a Division Bench of this court had issued certain directions, in its order, dated 7.9.1995. Thereafter, an Executive Officer had been appointed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, by an order, dated 30.11.1996. Thereafter, 15 different Executive Officers had been appointed, under Section 45(1) of the Act. The appointment of the Executive Officers were in consonance with the directions issued by this court. There is no illegality in such appointments, as alleged by the petitioners. The appointment of an Executive Officer for a temple is conferred, under Section 45 of the Act. As per the decision of the Supreme Court, made in Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2014(1) CTC 763, it has been made clear that the government shall frame rules in accordance with Section 45(1) of the Act. Pursuant to the said order, rules had been framed and notified, in G.O.Ms.No.238, dated 6.11.2015.

10. It has been pointed out that none of the erstwhile trustees of the temple or the elected members of the Sengunthar Mahasabha had questioned the appointment of the Fit Person or the Executive Officer. The first petitioner society is in no way concerned with the administration of the temple and they have no right over the same. As such, the Writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

11. With regard to the objection raised by the respondents that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners do not have the locus standi to file the Writ Petition, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that any one can question the maladministration or mismanagement of a temple, especially, a worshipper of the deities of the said temple. A person having interest in the temple has been defined, under Section 6(15) of the Act. He had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in K.Ekambaram and another Vs. Commissioner HR & CE of Administration Department etc., 1995-2-L.W. 213, in support of his contention. He had further submitted that for an Executive Officer or a Fit Person to be appointed, in respect of a temple, there should be maladministration of the temple, based on which such appointments could be made by the authorities concerned, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, there should be specific claims with regard to such maladministration or mismanagement and their details should be set out, clearly. The period for which a Fit Person or an Executive Officer is appointed should also be specified. Even if such appointments have to be made, they should be made only for a limited period. Further, at the time of the appointment of the Executive Officer for the temple in question no rules had been framed, as per the directions issued by the supreme court, in Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2014(1) CTC 763.

12. It has been stated that the petitioner is an erstwhile trustee of the temple. Instead of pointing out, in specific terms, the mismanagement or maladministration of the temple in question, the proceedings of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, dated 15.7.1994, states that the Commissioner has satisfied that the appointment of an Executive Officer for the temple will pave the way for better administration, in exercise of the powers vested with him, under Section 45(1) of the Act. The said proceedings of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, is vague in nature. Therefore, the appointment of the Executive Officer by the Commissioner, by his proceedings, dated 15.7.1994, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, this court had been pleased to quash the same and to direct the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, to redo the exercise of making an appointment, by following the principles of natural justice. Further, the directions issued by this court, in W.A.No.1324 of 1994, had not been followed, till date. All subsequent appointments, said to have been made, if any, by the authorities concerned, are illegal and void. It had also been pointed out that the Government of Tamilnadu had framed, the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015, recently. The framing of such rules cannot have retrospective effect and therefore, any appointments made by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, contrary to the framing of the rules, would be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2014(1) CTC 763.