Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 6 December, 2014
12. The respondents further submit that ultimately in all the attempts the
writ petitioners herein have failed and now come forward with the present writ
petition praying to declare the continuance of the 3rd respondent as Executive
Officer and the 4th respondent as Fit Person of the temple in question as illegal
in the of the judgement filed by Dr.Subramanian Swamy and another Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2014 (1) CTC 763. The respondent
further submit the said judgement is not applicable to the present case, since in
the present case, the hereditary trustees were suspended on serious charges and
the same is yet to be attained finality. Only because of the pendency of the said
proceedings, as an interim measure, Department have appointed the Fit person.
Therefore the continuance of the Fit Person and Executive Officer of the temple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18/40
W.P.(MD).No.20349 of 2023
in question can only be reviewed after the final orders were passed in the
Department to action taken against the hereditary trustees. Hence question of
reviewing the decision does not arise at this stage. It is also pertinent to note
that that are six hereditary trustees in which only first petitioner hearing have
come up with the grievance of reviewing the continuance of Fit Person and
Executive Officer of the temple in question. In fact, the first petitioner hearing
is the cause for suspending the hereditary trustees and further to hereditary
trustees namely Rajaraman and Thirumalai Jaipal, Muthu had given complaint
against the first petitioner. On enquiry, which resulted in initiation of the
department to enquiry and all the hereditary trustees have been suspended. At
this stage discontinuance of the service of Fit Person and Executive Officer to
the temple in question only affects the smooth administration of the temple.
Therefore the respondents submitted that the petition is devoid of merits and
deserves to be dismissed in limini. The respondents reserves their right to file
additional counter affidavit if and when required. Hence, the respondents
prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.