Disposed

C.Angusamy v. the Commissioner

Madras HC28 Aug 2020WP(MD)/6653/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition challenging temple renovation approval. Held that Rule 11 was not contravened as consent letters existed. Issued directions for tentative estimates, bank deposits to show bonafides, and opening an account for devotee contributions for ongoing works to prevent future disputes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; connected petitions closed; directions issued for estimate preparation, fund deposit, and account opening.

C.Angusamy Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2020

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020 and WMP(MD) No.6001 to 6003 & 8333 of 2020

¶5

C.Angusamy Petitioner Vs

¶6

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department,

¶7

Chennai.

¶8

2.Fit Person/The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sidhanatha Samedha Angalaparameshwari Temple, Varavanai, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.

¶9

3.Thiru.P.K.N.Arumugam 4.Thiru.R.C.Ramaraj 5.Thiru.C.Murugan 6.Thiru.K.Senthilvel

¶10

7.The Joint Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy. Respondents

¶12

(R1 is suo motu impleaded and rearrange the Serial Numbers of the other respondents vide Court Order dated 09.06.2020 by in W.P(MD) No.6653/2020)

¶13

(R7 impleaded vide Court order dated 21.08.2020 in WMP(MD) No.8336/2020 in WP(MD) No.6653 of 2020)

¶14

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Se.Mu.thu.Na.Ka.No.5548/2020/Y1, dated 31.01.2020 and impugned order of the second respondent dated 10.02.2020 and quash the same Prayer amended vide court order dated 21.08.2020 in WMP (MD).NO.8335/2020

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel for Mrs.S.Prabha For Respondents : For R1 - Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar Special Government Pleader For R2 – Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for Mr.P.Athimoolapandian For R3 to R6 – Mrs.D.Geetha

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

2.What is under challenge in this Writ Petition is the permission accorded for the private respondents herein to carryout certain donor works for the subject temple, namely, Arulmigu Sidhanatha Samedha Angalaparameshwari Temple, Varavanai, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District. The Primary contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that the proceedings of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department do not reflect the names of the donors. He would draw my attention to Rule 11 of Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, which reads as follows:-

¶22

''11.Execution of building works by worshipper or other person.- Whenever a worshipper or other person offers to donate the cost of or to execute any building works, the trustee shall obtain from him details of his proposals and if he proposes to undertake the works himself, a statement showing the manner in which the necessary finances for the execution of works will be made available and the time within which the construction will be completed and forward the details or statement, as the case may be, to appropriate authority with his remarks whether hte said offer may be accepted and, if so, on what conditions.''

¶23

3.The learned Senior Counsel also reiterated all other contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

¶24

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned proceedings do not warrant any interference and that the statutory rule has been followed in letter and spirit. The private respondents also would seriously question the bonafideness of the petitioner herein.

¶25

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. It is seen that on 13.01.2020, the Executive Officer/Fit person of the temple sent proposal to the Commissioner, HR & CE seeking his approval for permitting the private respondents herein to carry out what is called as donor works. It is true that the permission accorded by the Commissioner does not contain the names of the aforesaid donors. But then, the communication dated 13.01.2020 refers to the consent letters of the donors. I can certainly assume that the consent letters were also enclosed along with the said proposal. The consent letters though not dated, had been signed by P.K.N.Arumugam, R.C.Ramaraj, C.Murugan and K.Senthilvel. Thereafter, the estimate was also made ready on 30.01.2020. On the next day i.e 31.01.2020, the Commissioner, HR & CE had granted permission subject to certain conditions. I therefore, have no hesitation to reject the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that Rule 11 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

2/5

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020

¶28

the aforesaid rules has been contravened in this case.

¶29

6.The petitioner's counsel alleged that even though the order dated 31.01.2020 specifically forbade the donors from engaging in any collection from devotees, what is actually happening is to the contrary. He draws my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE in this regard. In the said counter affidavit of the Joint Commissioner, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit had averred as follows.

¶30

''6.It is submitted that the temple in issue is a nonlisted temple coming under the supervisory control of the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Karur. It is further, submitted that earlier the temple was administered by the then de-facto trustees, including the petitioner's group and 2^nd respondent's group in the above writ petitioner. i.e Thiru.P.K.N.Arumugam. It is further understood that the temple in existence then was old and hence it was demolished by the then de-facto trustees. There was a proposal to construct a new temple in the same place. The de-facto trustees of the temple had demolished the old structures of the temple without the knowledge of the Department and engaged themselves in collecting money from the public. With it, they commenced construction work and it had been completed to the basement level. Till that point of time, there was no dispute between the Writ petitioner's group and the second respondent's group. However, a dispute seems to have cropped up between the two groups on account of the collection that they had made from the public.''

¶31

7.It is also seen from the typed set of papers filed by the learned counsel for the private respondents that both the parties were on the same page once. The petitioner C.Angusamy had signed as 11^th person in the minutes of meeting held on 28.02.2010. It appears that a joint decision was taken for demolishing the old structure and putting up a new construction. Later, differnces of opinion erupted.

¶32

8.In order to avoid such situations in future, I direct that whatever a donor approaches the Trustee for carrying out some renovation work along with a proposal, before sending the same to the Commissioner, HR & CE Department for approval, the Trustee will prepare a tentative estimate and ensure that the amount is deposited in an interest bearing account in a Nationalised Bank. It will show the bonafides of the donor. The Commissioner while sanctioning approval can authorize the drawal of funds from the said account for carrying out such works. In the case on hand, it is obvious that the earlier structure had been demolished completely. Therefore, any interference at this point of time will definitely not be in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest of the temple or the devotees.

¶33

3/5

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020

¶35

9.At the same time, taking note of the genesis of the entire issue, I direct the Executive Officer/Fit person to open an account so as to receive contributions from the devotees. The said amount can be spent on the ongoing works including that or sanctum sanctorum. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents fairly states that merely because the petitioner herein have taken the initiative, they will not claim any special rights as such. In fact, the consent letter given by the private respondents itself is clearly to the said effect. Therefore, I am of the view that neither the petitioner nor any third party need to have any apprehension. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs has been spent so far and that they are ready to deposit the balance amount of Rs.23 Lakhs in the temple account. The special donor works shall be carried out by withdrawing the amount from the said account. Since lot more works are to be carried out, it is for the Executive Officer/fit person to come out with appropriate plan or response. If the donors are coming forward, the same can be considered. If there are no sufficient donors coming out with new proposals for completing the balance works, it is open to the authority to constitute Thirupanikuzhu for completing the remaining works. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on that aspect at present.

¶36

10.With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed.

¶37

vrn

¶38

Note:

¶39

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

4/5

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020

¶44

2.Fit Person/The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sidhanatha Samedha Angalaparameshwari Temple, Varavanai, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.

¶45

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy.

¶46

+1 CC to M/s.S. PRABHA, Advocate ( SR-15378[F] dated 31/08/2020 )

¶47

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-15420[F] dated 31/08/2020 )

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.6653 of 2020 and WMP(MD) No.6001 to 6003 & 8333 of 2020

¶49

28.08.2020

¶50

KB(11.09.2020) 5P 6C

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

C.Angusamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Angusamy v. the 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

V.Manoharan Nair Vs the District Collector

M/S.Shri Ramalinga Textiles (Aruppukottai)Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Tax Officer(Inspection Cell)

T.Parthiban Vs the Manager

R. Palanisamy Vs the Asst.Director of Mines and Minerals

M/S.Unicorn Polybags Vs the Customs and Central Excise

Hajee T.S.Ahamed Ibrahim Vs the Special Officer