Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents 3 to 7 in the Writ Petition have preferred the present Writ Appeal, challenging the directions issued in the Writ Petition to the department to appoint one among 3 members of non-hereditary trustees from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and the Government or the Commissioner, HR&CE to appoint a woman candidate. The main grounds of challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge are that when the scheme has been framed and is in place, the appointment of trustees can be only in terms of the scheme and not otherwise; Article 226 of the Constitution of India protects the rights of the appellants and the other residents of Sengunthar community who were living in 13 streets of Saidapet, which were enlisted in the scheme and that the department does not have the power to appoint trustees exercising power U/s. 47 of the Act. The further ground raised is that the temple is a denominational temple and the department cannot appoint trustees exercising power U/s. 47 of the Act merely because a temple is a listed temple (published under Sec.46(2) of the Act).

20. In our view, the only meaningful interpretation that can be given to Sec.50 of the Act is that the department's right to appoint trustees u/s. 47 or 49 is available, even if a scheme already in place contains a provision under which the department does not have a power to appoint trustees. We are unable to give any other interpretation to Sec.50 of the Act.

21. With regard to Sec.118, on a reading of the said provision, especially Sec.118(2)(b), we can straight away reject the argument of Mr.S.M.Loganathan. What all the provisions sets out is that if any provision in a scheme settled under the TNHR&CE, 1926 or a scheme settled by a Civil Court U/s. 92 of C.P.C being in force immediately before 30.09.1951, happens to be repugnant to any of the provisions contained in 1959 Act (Present Act) then it is only the present Act/provisions that shall prevail. Such of the provisions that are repugnant to the present Act would be void.

23. In the instant case, the scheme itself came to be framed only by the competent authority under the present enactment exercising power U/s. 64(1) of the Act. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel as well as the counsel for the appellants, which was also reinforced by the learned AGP, HR&CE, though there is a power to appoint trustees U/s. 47 and 49 of the Act, when there is a scheme in place, the only manner or way in which the trustees can be appointed by the department is to modify the scheme for which a separate detailed procedure is envisaged U/s. 64(5) of the Act and the same runs as follows:

26. From a clear reading of the provisions viz., Sec.47, 49 as well as Sec.50, it is only the power to appoint trustees that vests with the Department or the authorities under the Act. The said provisions, especially Sec.50, does not require that the mandate of Sec.47 or 49 has to be necessarily followed in the case of existing scheme temples. It is one thing to say that the authorities/department have got a power to appoint trustees and another thing to say that the power has to be exercised and extended to even schemes already settled and in place. Here, we have already observed that the scheme has been framed only under the present enactment, that too by the department themselves and that being the said position, the Court cannot compel the department/authorities functioning under the Act to follow the mandate of Sec.47 or 49 and direct appointment of one trustee from amongst Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe community and one woman trustee.