Allowed

Kathiresan, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC1 Aug 2016WP(MD)/12499/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging a temple management order sought quashing under Article 226 due to violation of natural justice. The court held that Section 49(1) power requires a show cause notice, set aside the order, and directed the authority to reissue after notice. Claims on hereditary status were left undecided.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.12.2012 set aside; First respondent directed to pass any order after issuing show cause notice to petitioners.

Kathiresan, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12499 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013

1.Kathiresan

2.A.Muthu

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Paramakudi.

¶13

2.The Inspector,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Paramakudi. .. Respondents

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 09/12/2012 in proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3537/2012/A7, quash the same as the same is arbitrary, ultravires, contrary to Act 22/59, principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Sankar Ganesh

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K. Selva Kumar Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent dated 09.12.2012 in proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3537/2012/A7, and quash the same, as the same is arbitrary, ultravires, contrary to Act 22/59, in violation of principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The facts leading to the present writ petition are summarised as follows:

¶23

¶24

3(a). The petitioners who claimed to be the persons are administering the affairs of the temple i.e., Arulmighu Pugaleswaramudaya Ayyanar Temple. Though Pugaleswaramudaya Ayyanar is a presiding deity, there are other deities attached with the main deity. It is a specific case of the petitioners that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department recognised the management of the temple by the petitioners. Though the petitioners claimed to be the poojaris and hereditary trustees of the temple, the first respondent has passed an order on an application in O.A.No.30 of 1997 to declare the office of the trusteeship as hereditary is pending before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai, the first respondent has passed the impugned order by proceedings dated 09.12.2012 appointing a Fit Person for the temple by exercising his power under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

¶25

4.Though it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the power under Section 49(A)(1) can be exercised only after issuing a show cause notice to the trustees in office, the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Further, the impugned order does not indicate the reason for taking over the administration of the temple from the persons who claimed to be the hereditary trustees and poojaris of the temple. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 09.12.2012, vide proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3537/2012/A7, is set aside and the first respondent is at liberty to pass any order after issuing show cause notice to the petitioners. The claim of the petitioner with regard to their status as hereditary trustees or with regard to their management, etc., are not decided for the present, as the impugned orders are set aside only on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed with the observations as indicated above. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶28

/True copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

¶32

¶33

1.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶34

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Paramakudi.

¶35

2.The Inspector,

¶36

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Paramakudi.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, Advocate SR.No.41120 +1cc to special Government Pleader SR.No.41251/16

¶38

srm

¶39

sm:KBM:16.8.2016:3P/5C

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.12499 of 2013

¶41

01.08.2016

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kathiresan, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathiresan, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor.M. Shafiya Begam Vs the Director of Postal

M. Pavalakkodi, Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Pavalakkodi Vs the Director of Survey and

G. Sekar, Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Maria Arputham Vs the Joint Commissioner /

M. Elango, Vs the Commissioner of