Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Rengesan vs The Commissioner on 24 October, 2025 cites

T.V. Mahalinga Iyer vs State Of Madras And Anr. on 6 August, 1980

12.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner then raised a technical plea. He pointed out that admittedly, the temple in question came under the administrative control of the HR & CE Department only in the year 2007. The replacement of the earlier idol was done much earlier. He, therefore, questioned the invocation of Rule 52 to hold the replacement of the earlier idol as illegal. This contention is without merit. Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 makes it clear that the Act applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments including the Incorporated Devaswoms and Unincorporated Devaswoms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (1992) 3 SCC 14 (Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple) and (1981) 1 SCC 445 ( T.V.Mahalinga Iyer Vs. State of Madras) had held that as far as Tamil Nadu is concerned there is initial presumption that a temple is a public one. It is admitted that the subject temple is a 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 09:11:46 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29524 of 2025 public temple. Section 4 of the Act enable the government to exempt any religious institution or endowment from the operation of any of the provisions of the Act. If a religious institution is a public one and there is no exemption notification under Section 4, the resultant position is that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder apply to an institution even though the department might not have formally intervened in its affairs. The department might have entered the scene for the first time only in the year 2007 by appointing a fit person for the temple. That does not mean that the temple was exempt from the operation of the Act earlier. I, therefore, hold that Rule 52 governed the field when the original idol was replaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel And Ors on 11 September, 2006

6.There is, however, considerable force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the impugned decision is based on irrelevant material. The resolution of SLEC reads that the installation of the earlier 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/10/2025 09:11:46 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29524 of 2025 idol stood permitted as per archeological report. An archeological report can testify the antiquity of the idol. Whether an idol should be installed in the sanctum sanctorum is a matter that has to be decided only by the agamic experts or persons well-versed in theology. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2006) 8 SCC 200 (Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel) held that an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material may be struck down. Thus, any administrative decision should be taken in the light of relevant materials. It cannot rest entirely on irrelevant material. In other words, an irrelevant material cannot form the sole foundation for an administrative decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 139 - D K Jain - Full Document
1