Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)Section 47 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 46 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
(viii) Learned Additional Advocate General,
in support of his challenge to the bonafides and locus of
PIL petitioner, drew our attention to Balwant Singh
Chaufal's case [State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh
Chauful and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 402]. Our
attention was drawn to paragraph 198 and sub-paragraph
(8) thereat but we refrain from going into the same as we
are examining the complaint before us as parens patriae
qua said temple.
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors on 19 July, 2007
'10. The properties of deities, temples and
Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by
their Trustees/Archaks/ Sebaits/employees. Instances are many
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13/25
W.P(MD)No.29357 of 2023
where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and
safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom
Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by
setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse
possession. This is possible only with the passive or active
collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences
eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government,
members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be
vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is
also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties
of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or
misappropriation.'
Though aforementioned A.A.Gopalakrishnan's case
pertains to Courts protecting temple properties as
'custodia legis' of the same, the underlying/underpinning
principle is, the deity is in the nature of a minor and Court
is it's guardian. The case on hand pertains to appointment
of non-hereditary trustees who would inter alia be taking
decision pertaining to temple properties. In this view of
the matter, even if the PIL petitioner is discharged (to be
noted, in any case PIL petitioner is only an informant) this
Court can examine the complaint. Though, this is a
general principle across the board qua PILs, as the case on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/25
W.P(MD)No.29357 of 2023
hand pertains to a temple under TN HR & CE Act this
sublime philosophy and salutary principle applies with
greater rigour and all force.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1