Allowed

P.Pitchaimuthu v. the Commissioner

Madras HC26 Nov 2021WP(MD)/11252/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment of a Fit person for temple management. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to appoint a Fit person within four weeks to safeguard temple properties, without adjudicating on specific allegations of mismanagement.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent directed to appoint a Fit person within four weeks (on or before 24.12.2021) to manage the said temples.

P.Pitchaimuthu Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.11.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.11252 of 2015

P.Pitchaimuthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department,Madurai.

¶9

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶10

H.R & C.E. Department,Dindigul.

4.Panchatcharam

5.Subramani

6.Dhanalakshmi

7.Senguthan ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents 1 to 3 to appoint a Thakkar / Executive Officer or a Committee of persons for the purpose of the management of Arulmighu Manickavalli Amman, Arulmighu Maragathavalliamman and Arulmighu Mahalingeswarar Temples in Thavasimadai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District and the properties endowed in favour of the deities and for further direction to take suitable action against the fourth respondent for his misappropriation and mismanagement.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Aravindhan for R4 No Appearance for R5 to R7

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

'Arulmighu Manickavalli Amman, Arulmighu Maragathavalliamman and Arulmighu Mahalingeswarar Temples' [hereinafter collectively 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is the fulcrum of the captioned writ petition and administration of said temple is the central theme of the writ petition.

¶19

Prayer in the captioned writ petition is a simple mandamus qua respondents 1 to 3 to appoint a Thakkar / Executive Officer or a Committee of persons for the purpose of management of said temple. This prayer is predicated and posited on the allegation that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/5

¶21

WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015

¶22

fourth respondent who is Poosari of the said temple has inter alia alienated the lands / assets of said temple besides several other acts of mismanagement. It is also submitted that respondents 5 to 7 [private respondents] are alienees of temple lands which are alleged to have been alienated by the fourth respondent.

¶23

Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for writ petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Aravindan, learned counsel for fourth respondent are before this Court. Respondents 5 to 7 have been duly served and their names together with full addresses as in the cause title have been shown in the cause list but none appears. This Court is informed that no counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondents 5 to 7.

¶24

A careful perusal of the case file placed before this Court, brings to light that the nucleus of the central theme is proceedings dated 11.11.2014 bearing reference e.f.vz; .4826/2014/M1 being proceedings made by the third respondent and the same reads as follows:

¶25

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

¶26

2/5

¶27

WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015

¶28

To be noted, a perusal of the scanned reproduction supra brings to light that the trusteeship of the said temple has been declared to be hereditary vide O.A.No.129/1944 as it is evident from RTI reply to one of the queries in the scanned reproduction supra. Therefore, the said temple cannot but be a public temple.

¶29

As the fourth respondent has not filed counter affidavit, I deem it appropriate to not to express any opinion or view on the allegations that have been made. It is necessary that the interest of said temple is protected as this Court is parens patriae qua idol, which is in the status of a minor and custodia legis qua the properties of a pubic temple. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the oft quoted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A.Gopalakrishnan's case [ A.A.Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors., ] reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of this Court to protect temple properties .

¶30

In this view of the matter, as the prayer is essentially for appointment of Executive Officer / Fit person / Committee, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent (jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner i.e., the

¶31

3/5

¶32

WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015

¶33

Assistant Commissioner, TN HR & CE Department, Dindigul), who statutorily vested with powers to appoint Fit person qua said temple under the 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) at the earliest. To be noted, this Court is informed by learned State Counsel based on the records that the said temple is a non-listed temple and therefore, the directive is to the third respondent now. This would ensure that administration of said temple is taken charge and all the allegations are looked into. As already alluded to supra, I have not expressed any view or opinion on the allegations and I have left open the allegations but the primary concern is to ensure that the properties of said temple are safeguarded and the management and administration is streamlined.

¶34

This Court is informed that the fourth respondent is functioning as a Poosari of said temple. This submission is recorded. The third respondent shall appoint a Fit person as expeditiously as the business of the third respondent would permit and in any event within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 24.12.2021. It is also made clear that further proceedings post appointment of Fit person i,e., proceedings such as appointment of Executive officer, Trustee etc., can proceed without being fettered or stifled by this order.

¶35

Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the above directive. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

Note : 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

1.The Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

¶42

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

¶43

4/5

¶44

WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015

¶45

2.The Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Madurai.

¶46

3.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Dindigul.

¶47

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-36286[F] dated 29/11/2021 )

¶48

+1 CC to M/s.H.LAKSHMI SHANKAR, Advocate ( SR-36314[F] dated 29/11/2021 )

¶49

W.P(MD)No.11252 of 2015 26.11.2021

¶50

PS(CO) KB(22.12.2021) 5P 6C

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

P.Pitchaimuthu v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pitchaimuthu 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

N. Palanichamy, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Sheik Mohammed Pitchai Vs the Chairman

Madanraj, Vs the Commissioner

K.Jaffer Ali, S/O.M.Kadhar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Chandrasekaran. Nr Vs the Assistant Commissioner

S.R. Ramanujam, Vs the Secretary to Govt.