Dismissed

C.v.Chandrasekaran v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC5 Nov 2019WP/25511/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension of a hereditary trustee under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Court held trust falls under the Act and suspension was lawful pending charges and enquiry. Petition dismissed allowing proceeding with charges.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents allowed to proceed with framing charges and enquiry within eight weeks.

C.v.Chandrasekaran Vs the Joint Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :05.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.25511 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008

¶6

C.V. Chandrasekaran S/o. late Cunniah Chetty Hereditary Trustee Collah Singanna Chetty Charities 118, West Raja Street, Big Kanchipuram

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Vellore.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments Department,

¶11

Kanchipuram.

¶12

The Executive Officer, Sri Ekambaranathar Temple, Kanchipuram 631 502.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned proceedings in Na/Ka 8051 /08E dated 13.10.2008 of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶15

for R3

¶16

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the first respondent suspending the petitioner under

¶17

Section 54(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Cheritable and Endowments Act (herein after called as Äct")

¶18

According to the petitiner, he was the hereditary trustee of one Colla Singanna Chetty Charities, and the above charity has been covered by a scheme framed by this Court vide order dated 07.09.1944 in C.S.No.27 of 1944. It is a Composite Trust, which is charitable and religious in nature. The first respondent, who has no control over the petitioner trust, has passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner pending charges and also appointing a fit person under Sectin 54(3) of the Act. According to the peteitioner, even assuming that the first respondent has power to suspend the petitioner, the first respondent has no power to suspend the petitioner without framing any charges and without conducting any enquiry whatsoever. On these gounds, he has challenged the impugned order.

¶19

The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that Collah Singanna Chetty Charities, Kanchipuram, is a public religious charity as defined under Section 6(16) of the Act, and the provisions of the Act are applicable to the Trust. As per the scheme framed by this Court, the administration of charity is vested with the hereditary trustee and the writ petitioner was recognized as hereditary Trustee by the first respondent under Section 54(1) of the Act in M.P.No.3 of 2000 dated 03.01.2000. The petitioner failed to administrate the charity in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and attempted to sell the property of the charity, and also mis-managed the trust. The petitioner has taken steps to sell 380 acres of lands belonging to the charity in Sitherimedu village by obtaining Court orders by circumventially projecting false promises. In the above circumstances, situations warrant to take immediate measure to save the properties of the charities from the clutches of the hereditary trustee. Hence, the first respondent proposed to take action under Section 53(2) of the H.R. & C.E.Act against the hereditary trustee and in view of the urgency and in the interest of the instittion, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 53 of the Act and appointed the Executive Officer, Arulmughu Ekambaranathar Temple, Kanchipuram, as the fit person of the charity to take charge of the management and there is no illegality in the order passed by them.

¶20

The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner trust is a composite trust and it does not come under the purview of the H.R & C.E. Act. Hence, the first respondent has no power to suspend the petitioner and appoint a fit person to the Trust. He further submit that in considering the nature of the trust, a composit trust, which is governed by a scheme framed by this Court, a fit person cannot be appointed to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trust. That apart, the order of suspension without framing

¶21

any charges and without conducting any enquiry is also bad in law. Before placing the petitioner under suspension, charges must be framed and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges and then only the order of suspension can be passed. But the first respondent without following none of the mandatory provisions has placed the petititoner under suspension.

¶22

Per contra the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the petitioner trust comes under the purview of the HR & CE Act. Earlier in a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act in O.P.No.821 of 2003, this Court by an order dated 06.07.2010 has held that the petitioner trust comes under the purview of the HR & CE Act and the said judgment became final. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner trust will not come under the purview of the Act. That apart, the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry under Section 54 (3) of the Act and necessary charges would be framed against him and enquiry will be conducted as per Section 53 of the Act. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents are not in a position to proceed further with framing charges and conducting enquiry.

¶23

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records carefully.

¶24

The premodial contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner Trust is a Composite Trust and it will not come under the purview of the Act, and hence, the first respondnt has no power to suspend the petitioner. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Act seeking permission to sell the trust property, this Court by an order dated 06.07.2010 in O.P.NO.821 of 2003 has held that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the Trust and it comes under the purview of the HR & CE Act and ultimately dismissed the O.P. holding that the petitioner is not entitled to sell the trust property without obtaining permission from the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department. The relevant porltion of the order reads as follows :

¶25

The petitioner trust, being a religious endowment and charitable institution and governed by the provisions of H.R & C.E. Act, is certainly not entitled to seek permission before this Court wihtout obtaining permission fromt he COmmissioenr, H.R & C.E. Department. The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Commmissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act,to obtain permission and if necessary to apply thereafter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before this Court. Therefore, the

¶26

petition is not at all sustainable now before this Court."

¶27

In view of the above finding, now it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner trust will not come under the purview of H.R & C.E. Act.

¶28

So far as the next contention of the petitioner, the petitioner has been suspended pending disposal of the charges under Section 53(4) of the Act, it is only a suspension in contemplation of framing of charges for which the first respondent has power. Hence, the second contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

¶29

In the above circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and find no illegality in appointing fit person, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

However, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the framing of charges and conduct enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

mrp

¶36

¶37