Disposed

Thavathiru.T.Mani Sathu v. The Commissioner

Madras HC29 Oct 2021WP/23135/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order appointing a Fit Person to a temple under Section 49(1) of the TN HR & CE Act. The Court found no infirmity under Sections 1(3) and 4, allowing the petitioner temporary pooja rights while directing them to approach the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to conduct poojas temporarily; directed to file application under Section 63 within four weeks; all other questions left open.

Thavathiru.T.Mani Sathu Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

 W.P.NO.23135 OF 2021
&
WMP.NOS. 24399 & 24401 OF 2021

¶6

Thavathiru. T.Mani Sathu

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

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

¶10

2. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District. Tiruvannamalai.

¶11

3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Administration, Arunachaleshwarar Temple, Tiruvanamalai, Tiruvanamalai District.

¶12

4. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Tiruvanamalai, Tiruvanamalai District.

¶13

5. The Fit Person/Thakkar, Issaki Sethar Samathi, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai District, Office at: Executive Officer,

¶14

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

¶15

 Kannigaparameshwari Temple,
 Tiruvannamalai,

¶16

 Tiruvannamalai District.

¶17

 ...Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the 3rd respondent in impugned proceedings in
Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.5074/2019/ A2/ dated 20.11.2019 and consequently
impugned proceedings dated 25.11.2019 issued by 5th respondent
and quash the same and further directing the .respondents to
permit the petitioner to perform their daily Poojas and manage
the Isaki Swamigal Pedam based on his representation dated
06.12.2020.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar

¶20

For Respondent: Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan
 Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for writ petitioner
and Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned State counsel, who accepts
notice on behalf of all the respondents, are before this Court
and with the consent of both sides, main writ petition is taken
up as the matter turns on a very narrow compass. An 'order dated
20.11.2019 bearing reference No. Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.5074/2019/A2'
(hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and
clarity) has been called in question/assailed. The impugned
order has been made under Section 49 (1) of 'the Tamil Nadu
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of
1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience
and clarity) appointing a Fit Person (Thakkar) to the temple
mentioned therein.

¶23

2. Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that
the writ petitioner has been permitted to do poojas i.e., the
religious/ecclesiastical functions in the temple for the
present, but otherwise the Fit person has taken over/taken
charge and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶24

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

¶25

3. This Court, having perused the impugned order, finds
that it is an innocuous simple order under Section 49 (1) of TN
HR&CE Act. In the light of Section 1(3) of TNHR & CE Act read
with Section 4 of TN HR&CE Act, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned order. The writ petitioner, if at
all and if that be so, should take recourse to Section 63 of
TN HR & CE Act.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ
petitioner would take recourse to Section 63 of TN HR & CE Act.
Therefore, it is made clear that writ petitioner being permitted
to do poojas in said temple, which is a temporary phenomenon
for the present as the writ petitioner is to proceed under
Section 63 of TN HR&CE Act and this Court is informed that writ
petitioner will approach the jurisdictional joint commissioner
of 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department' [TN HR & CE Dept.] as expeditiously as possible and
in any event, within four weeks from today i.e., on or before
26.11.2021.

¶27

5. In the light of the aforesaid narrative, discussion
and dispositive reasoning, captioned writ petition is disposed
of albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner in the
aforesaid manner and leaving open all questions including
questions raised in the captioned writ petition to be canvassed
in Section 63 proceedings (if initiated by writ petitioner
within aforementioned time frame). Consequently writ
miscellaneous petition are also disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

gpa

¶33

To

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

`2. The District Collector,` `Tiruvannamalai District.` `Tiruvannamalai.`
`3. The Joint Commissioner,` `Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment,` `Administration,` `Arunachaleshwarar Temple,` `Tiruvanamalai,` `Tiruvanamalai District.`
`4. The Assistant Commissioner` `Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment,` `Tiruvanamalai,` `Tiruvanamalai District.`
`5. The Fit Person/Thakkar,` `Issaki Sethar Samathi,` `Vengikkal Village,` `Tiruvannamalai District,` `Office at: Executive Officer,` `Kannigaparameshwari Temple,` `Tiruvannamalai,` `Tiruvannamalai District.`
`+1cc to Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.56584`
`+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(HR & CE), High Court,` `Madras, S.R.No.56795`
`W.P.No.23135 of 2021` `&` `WMP.Nos.24399 & 24401 of 2021`

¶37

BR(CO)
RLP(17/11/2021)

¶38

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

Thavathiru.T.Mani Sathu v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thavathiru.T.Mani Sathu 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

M.K.Mohan, Vs The Principal Secretary to

Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises Vs The State Tax officer

Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises Vs The State Tax officer

Thavathiru.T.Mani Sathu Vs The Commissioner

Raju Sugumaran Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Raju Sugumaran Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax