Partly allowed

V.Pasavaraj v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Dec 2019WP/273/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the appointment of a fit person to administer a Mutt due to alleged mismanagement and sale of properties. Across 29 paragraphs, the court addresses the legality of departmental interference and the procedure for tenancy regularization, ultimately dismissing the challenge to the fit person appointment while directing the authorities to consider tenancy regularizations with due

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to consider tenancy regularization representations and pass appropriate orders after giving due notice to all stakeholders and opportunity to produce documents by 29.02.2020.

V.Pasavaraj Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.273 of 2018 & 12145 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.331 & 332

¶6

V.Pasavaraj ..Petitioner in W.P.No.273/2018

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The Commissioner,

¶9

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road,

¶10

Chennai – 600 034.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034.

¶13

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Cuddalore District.

¶15

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Thillai Kaliamman Temple, Chidambaram – 608 000,

¶16

Cuddalore District.

¶17

5.J.Brammasri S.Saravanan ..Respondents in W.P.No.273/2018 (R5 Impleaded vide order of Court dated 20/02/2019 made in WMP.No.8027 of 2018 in WP.No.273 of 2018 )

1.S.Palanisamy

2.R.Gnanavel

3.Sumathi

4.K.Lakshmi

5.V.Parasuraman

6.D.Narayanan

7.B.Saravanan

8.T.Sankar

9.M.Settu

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

¶29

10.Manjula 11.S.Senthil 12.G.Kamatchi 13.V.Bernatsha 14.D.Muthaiyan 15.Meenakshi

¶30

16.Kamala

¶31

17.G.Sekar 18.R.Vasanthan 19.Mala ..Petitioners in W.P.No.12145/2019 Vs 1.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

¶32

2.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.

¶33

3.The Municipal Commissioner, Chidambaram Municipality, Chidambaram.

¶34

4.The Tahsildar, Chidambaram.

¶35

5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Cuddalore.

¶36

6.Arulmigu Gurunamachaviya Moorthy Swamigal mutt, Rep.by Executive Officer, Chidambaram Town, Cuddalore.

¶37

7.V.Pasavaraj

¶38

8.V.Vanchinathan ..Respondents in W.P.No.12145/2019

¶39

(R6 to R8 impleaded vide order dated 29/04/2019 made in WMP.No.13480 of 2019 in WP.No.12145 of 2019)

¶40

Prayer in W.P.No.273/2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 05.10.2017 in Na.Ka.No.46790/2017/S1 and Letter issued by the 4^th respondent dated 21.12.2017 respectively and quash the same.

¶41

Prayer in W.P.No.12145/2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

Writ of Mandamus, directing the 5^th respondent herein to forthwith regularize the tenancy of the petitioners by fixing fair rent for the extent of the land the petitioners are possessing based on the 1^st to 8^th petitioners representation dated 05.02.2019, the 9^th to 12^th petitioners representation dated 06.02.2019, the 13^th to 18^th petitioners representation dated 07.02.2019 and 19^th petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2019 addressed to the 5^th respondent.

¶45

In W.P.No.273 of 2018 For Petitioner : Mr.Marudhachalamoorthy for M/s.Uday

¶46

For Respondents: Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Swaminathan for R4 Mr.V.Uday Kumar for R5

¶47

In W.P.No.12145 of 2019 For Petitioner : Raja.K

¶48

For Respondents: Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader for R1,R2, R4 Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan for R3 Mr.M.Maharaja for R5 Mr.T.Saravanan for R8

¶49

COMMON ORDER

¶50

By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up for consideration.

¶51

W.P.No.273 of 2018, has been filed by V.Pasavaraj, who claimed to be Trustee & Madathipathi of Arulmigu Gurunamachaviya Moorthy Swamigal Mutt, Chidambaram. The said Mutt appears to control, about 100 houses, 20 shops and 30 covering pattarais and also a school by name Kamaraj Matriculation with about 4000 sq.ft., of land and one Thirupparkadal Tank. It is stated that there are also several tenants in the said premises. One individual by name Saravanan, who also claims to be interested in the Mutt, had given a complaint against the petitioner herein on 30.10.2015 before the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Cuddalore. Notice was issued to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. A report was also received from the Tahsildar seeking to identify the properties of the Mutt. It was then found that, most of the properties were actually transferred, sold and that the school

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

also has been leased out and various acts of mischief had also been committed.

¶55

The said writ petition came to be filed in the nature of Certiorari, seeking to quash the letter of the second respondent dated 05.10.2017 in Na.Ka.No.46790/2017/S1 and another letter of the 4^th respondent dated 21.12.2017. Hence, the second respondent, who is the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry under Section 60(1) of the HR&CE Act. The respondents were constrained to appoint a fit person by letter dated 05.10.2017. The Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Gurunamachavaya Swamigal Mutt was appointed as a fit person of the present Mutt. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition has been filed.

¶56

In W.P.No.12145 of 2019, as many as 19 tenants in the Mutt properties have filed the said writ petition in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction against the respondent to consider the representations dated 05.02.2019, 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 and pass appropriate orders. They seek the relief of regularization of the tenancy and also payment of fair rent as fixed in accordance with the Rules.

¶57

Heard the learned counsels for both the sides in both the writ petitions.

¶58

It is the claim of the present petitioner that his father had executed a Will in his favour and he has become Madathipathi of the said Mutt. It has been stated that his forefathers, for time immemorial for the past nearly 100 years, have been conducting all the religious rites and there was no necessity for appointment of a fit person.

¶59

The learned counsel stated that interference by the HR&CE Department is totally unwarranted and claimed that any interference should be struck down by the Court and a direction should be granted by the Court to the petitioner that he alone must be permitted to run the Mutt without any hindrance by the respondent. On the other hand, in the counter filed by the respondents it has been stated that the Mutt has been the subject matter of mismanagement and though there are several properties, most of which could not identified, they have been either sold or leased out. It was very specifically stated that even earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.No.13969 of 2015 in which the department was directed to measure the properties. It is also stated that even prior to Independence, the HR & CE Department was in effective control of the Mutt.

¶60

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

¶61

¶62

In this connection, the documents relied on by the respondents, as mentioned in the counter affidavit and evidenced from the year 1906, state that the Mutt is under the control of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, even prior to 1947. The document which the petitioner relied namely, the Will had been rejected by the respondents. Very specifically, it has been stated that since there were sale of properties and since the petitioner himself had not come forward to participate in the enquiry to protect the properties, a fit person was necessary and was appointed only in accordance with the rules.

¶63

Any Mutt, which is administered by a Madathipathi requires dedicated administration by the Madathipathi. Dedicated administration would include not only performing religious rites but also administering and protecting the properties of the Mutt. If the properties are sold or leased out, and such actions of the Mutt are reported to the department, the HR & CE has an inherent right to step in to regularize the activities. In the present case also, a complaint made by one Saravanan, who has been impleaded as the 5^th respondent, it has been found that there were several instances of Mutt mal-administration including sale of properties. The sale of properties would mean that not only does the properties go away from the custody of the Mutt but also receipt of sale considerations to the detriment of the Mutt. If such considerations are taken away by any individual member, this would be to the loss of the Mutt. This cannot be permitted. It has to be prevented.

¶64

In the instant case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the respondents appointing a fit person. It is only for the benefit of the Mutt. If at all, the petitioner requires, he may file necessary application to the respondents to also participate in the Management. But such participation, can be done only if he clears his name from charges of maladministration. So long as there are charges against him, unless he clears himself of those charges, he cannot be permitted to participate in the administration of Mutt.

¶65

In so far as the second writ petition, No.12145 of 2019 is concerned, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders after giving due notice to all the required stake holders to put-forth their case and also provide opportunity to produce necessary documents and pass final orders on or before 29.02.2020.

¶66

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

¶67

¶68

With these observations, W.P.No.273 of 2018 is dismissed and W.P.No.12145 of 2019 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶71

//True Copy//

¶72

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶73

¶74

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶75

2.The Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034.

¶76

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶77

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Cuddalore District.

¶78

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Thillai Kaliamman Temple, Chidambaram – 608 000, Cuddalore District.

¶79

5.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

¶80

6.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.

¶81

7.The Municipal Commissioner, Chidambaram Municipality, Chidambaram.

¶82

8.The Tahsildar,Chidambaram.

¶83

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Gurunamachaviya Moorthy Swamigal mutt, Chidambaram Town, Cuddalore.

¶84

+1 cc to M/s.Uday, Advocate Sr.No. 101888

¶85

+1 cc to M/s.V.Udayakumar,Advocate Sr.No. 102027

¶86

+1 cc to M/s.R.Swaminathan,Advocate Sr.No. 101451

¶87

+1 cc to M/s.K.Raja,Advocate Sr.No. 101587

¶88

+1 cc to M/s.T.Saravanan,Advocate Sr.No. 101458

¶89

+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.102273 & 102274

¶90

AKM/21.01.2020/6P- 16C /

¶91

Writ Petition Nos.273 of 2018 & 12145 of 2019

¶92

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

¶93

V.Pasavaraj v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Pasavaraj v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Quantum Coal Energy (P) Ltd., Vs National Company Law Tribunal

Rajkumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Chordia Educational Trust, Vs The District Collector

P.Vanagamudi Arasan Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Rajendran Vs S.Santhi

S.Suriya, Vs Territory Manager (Lubes) Reseller