Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) From the previous proceedings it is seen that the management of the temple is administered by the lineal descendants of the two sons of Valliammal and 10 trustees were elected as trustees i.e., 5 persons representing each branch. Since two of the trustees were not in office due to pendency of proceedings only 8 trustees were administering the temple at present and they constitute the Board of Trustees.
(f) By proceedings dated 21.03.2015, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, issued a show cause notice to eight of the hereditary trustees of the temple calling upon them to show cause why an action under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act should not be taken against the hereditary trustees for the serious irregularities and defects in the administration of the temple which were enumerated as items 1 to 12.

(j) By a detailed reply dated 14.03.2016, one of the hereditary Trustees by name P.Sivaji Poojari who was then functioning as the Chairman of Board of Trustees gave explanation with reference to each of the 12 charges denying them. Similar explanation was also submitted by a person by name V.K.Pandian Poojari who claimed to be an Ex-hereditary Trustee. Two other trustees also submitted similar explanations. Another explanation dated 21.03.2016 was also submitted by three other trustees. The trustees also submitted some documents referred to in their explanations. One R.Rabellow as poojari has also submitted his explanation.

45. Another judgment cited before us is the judgment in the case of M.P.Anandam Pillai (Deceased) and another vs. The State represented by its Secretary to Government reported in 2004 (4) CTC 368.

46. In this case, the specific endowment attached to a temple is governed by a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department whereby the administration vests in the hereditary trustees comprising of two persons representing two branches. When one of the trustees was in management there were allegations of mismanagement and in that context, an Executive Officer was appointed to ensure better administration of the endowment by order dated 24.06.1978. This order was never challenged. However, the hereditary trustees filed a petition on 19.10.1999 seeking removal of Executive Officer on the ground that the endowment was not properly administered by Successive Officers. This petition was rejected by the Commissioner and the order of Commissioner was confirmed by the State. A Writ Petition was filed by the hereditary trustee challenging the order of Government and during the pendency of Writ Petition, the petitioner / hereditary trustee against whom allegations were made died. In that context, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition for the following reasons:

58. Ms.J.Anandhavalli, learned counsel appearing for some of the trustees relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Rajambal Ammal vs. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admin) Department, Coimbatore and another reported in CDJ 1993 MHC 622. This is a case where one of the two hereditary trustees was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into grave charges and no disciplinary action had been initiated against the other hereditary trustee. In the said circumstances, the appointment of Fit Person under Section 53 (4) of the Act was challenged by the other trustee. In such circumstances, it was held as follows: