Disposed

K.M.Ramesh Babu v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC1 Oct 2021WP/33741/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions regarding the Sri Kannika Parameswari Temple in Salem. The High Court ordered the Joint Commissioner to conduct elections for trustees within four months without expressing a view on the merits of the issues raised.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the Joint Commissioner to conduct elections for the temple trustees within four months (on or before 04.02.2022).

K.M.Ramesh Babu Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.NOS.33741 OF 2017 AND 24712 OF 2018

¶6

AND W.M.P.NOS.17766 OF 2018, 37376, 37377, 37378, 37379 OF 2017,

¶7

28784 & 28749 OF 2018

¶8

W.P.NO.33741 OF 2017

¶9

K.M.Ramesh Babu

¶10

S/o.Manikam

¶11

B. Mohanasundaram S/o.Balakrishnan

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

-Vs.-

¶14

The Joint Commissioner, O/o.Joint Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem – 636 001.

¶16

The Inspector,

¶17

Office of the Inspector, Salem Town, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶18

A/m.Kanika Parameswari Amman Devastham, Rep. By its Managing Trustee, A.B.Venugopala Chettiar, 8/417, Bazaar Street, Salem – 636 001. ... Respondents

¶19

W.P.No.24712 of 2018

¶20

P. Balakrishnan S/o.Late Padmanabhan .... Petitioner

¶21

-vs.-

¶22

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

¶23

1.The Commissioner,

¶24

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶25

The Joint Commissioner, O/o.Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem – 636 001.

¶26

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶27

The Inspector, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶28

Arul Migu Kanika Parameswari Amman Devasthanam, Represented by its Managing Trustee, 8/417, Bazar Street, Salem – 636 001. 6. A.M.Venugopala Chettiar, Managing Trustee, Arul Migu Kanika Parameswari Amman Devasthanam, 8/417, Bazar Street, Salem – 636 001. ...Respondents

¶29

Prayer in W.P.No.33741 of 2017:

¶30

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for entire records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 12.07.2017 of the 1^st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.6858/2017/B2 and impugned notice dated 15.11.2017 of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.71/2017 and quash the same.

¶31

Prayer in W.P.No.24712 of 2018:

¶32

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to appoint a special officer for the 5th respondent Devasthanam exclusively to verify all the accounts for the preceding years, take stock of the entire movable, immovable properties and the jewels of the deity and prepare voters list and conduct election as per the scheme decree and thereafter hand over the management and affairs of the Arul Migu Kanika Parameswari Amman Devasthanam, 8/417, Bazar Street, Salem – 636 001, to the newly elected trustees. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

For Petitioner in W.P.No.33741 of 2017 : Mr.V.Srikanth

¶34

For Petitioner in W.P.No.24712 of 2018 : Mr.G.Arul Murugan

¶35

For Respondents in W.P.No.33741 of 2017 : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan

¶36

Government Advocate for R1 & R2

¶37

No Appearance for R3

¶38

For Respondents in W.P.No.24712 of 2018 : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan

¶39

Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶40

No Appearance for R5 & R6 ******

¶41

COMMON ORDER

¶42

This common order will govern the captioned two writ petitions and all writ miscellaneous petitions [WMPs] thereat.

¶43

Captioned writ petitions pertain to a temple which goes by the name 'Sri Kannika Parameswari Temple situate at Big Bazaar Street, Salem District' [hereinafter 'said Temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶44

When the matter was taken up today, the trajectory which it took makes it unnecessary to dilate on facts, the same will be set out infra elsewhere in this order. Suffice to say that said Temple is governed by a scheme having been duly settled under 'The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No.22 of 1959)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TN HR&CE Act' and various issues cropped up in the administration of said Temple leading to filing of the captioned writ petitions.

¶45

There is no disputation that the Trustees have to be appointed. In W.P.No.24712 of 2018, a counter affidavit has been filed by second respondent therein i.e., Jurisdictional Joint Commissioner i.e., Joint Commissioner, Salem and paragraph No.7 of the said counter affidavit is of relevance. Paragraph No.7 of counter affidavit of Joint Commissioner reads as follows:

¶46

'7. The averments in para 17 of the affidavit are partly correct and mostly false. It is true to say that this respondent had passed an order in Na.Ka.No.6858/2017/A2 dated 30.1.2018 to stop the election proceeding until further order is passed. This respondent submits that the temple management had sent a letter to appoint an election officer in the grade of Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly this respondent appointed the Assistant Commissioner, H.R & C.E of Arulmigu Sugavaneswarar Temple, Salem as election officer in Na.Ka.6858/2017/A2 dated 24.1.2018. It is further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that the petitioner herein once again sent a

¶47

complaint letter on 25.1.2018 to stop the election. Therefore this respondent passed the above order. Further the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.65/2018 before the District Munsif Court, Salem and the same is pending.'

¶48

Regarding the suit mentioned therein i.e., O.S.No.65 of 2018, this Court is informed that the suit has been withdrawn unconditionally on 15.04.2019. The memo of withdrawal and judgement have also been placed before this Court. Scanned reproduction of memo of withdrawal and judgment are as follows:

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

The aforementioned suit has been filed with a prayer to restrain TNHR&CE Department from conducting election on a particular day and seeking directions i.e., mandatory injunction qua TNHR&CE Department. This suit is clearly barred by Section 108 of TNHR&CE Act, which reads as follows:

¶53

'Section 108. Bar of suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions, etc., - No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.'

¶54

However, as a legal quietus has been given to the suit by withdrawal, I deem it appropriate to leave it that in this order. Reverting to paragraph No.7 of counter affidavit of the Jurisdictional Joint Commissioner, the same is a complete answer to lis as conduct of elections for Trustees as per the scheme qua said Temple will give a quietus to the whole matter. Let the second respondent in W.P.No.24712 of 2018 i.e., Jurisdictional Joint Commissioner being Joint Commissioner O/o.Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman

¶55

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

¶56

Temple Campus, Salem, conduct election qua said Temple in accordance with the scheme as expeditiously as the official business of respondent would permit and in any event, within four months from today i.e., on or before 04.02.2022.

¶57

The above draws the curtains on the captioned writ petitions. In the light of the trajectory as already alluded to supra, the captioned Writ Petitions are disposed of by making this simple order. Though obvious, it is made clear that no view or opinion on merits of the matter has been expressed in this order. Consequently, connected WMPs are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

-sd/-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶63

¶64

The Joint Commissioner,

¶65

O/o.Joint Commissioner,

¶66

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem – 636 001.

¶67

The Inspector,

¶68

Office of the Inspector, Salem Town,

¶69

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶70

3.The Commissioner,

¶71

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶72

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶73

The Inspector,

¶74

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶75

+2 C.C. to MR.G.ARUL MURUGAN, ADVOCATE SR.NOS.51368,51369

¶76

W.P.No.33741 of 2017 and 24712 of 2018

¶77

and W.M.P.Nos.17766 of 2018, 37376, 37377, 37378, 37379 of 2017, 28784 & 28749 of 2018

¶78

NR(CO) PM(21/10/2021)

¶79

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

K.M.Ramesh Babu v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Ramesh Babu v. The Joint 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

S.Elambharathi Vs The Principal Commissioner

Sri Sivasakthi Agency Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

New Prince Matriculation Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M/s.Hotel Imperial Vs The Commissioner

K. G. Narayan Bhat Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/s. Lakshmi Shamabaht Trust Vs State of Tamilnadu