Allowed

Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukovil v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Oct 2023WP(MD)/13229/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside impugned orders appointing a Fit Person and temporary administrator to a Temple for lacking reasons and due process, directing the authorities to issue a fresh notice and conduct a hearing under Section 63(b) of the HR&CE Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.09.2020 and 01.08.2018 set aside; direction to respondents to issue fresh notice and pass orders after hearing the petitioner under s.63(b) of HRCE Act.

Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukovil Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020 and

¶7

WMP(MD)Nos.11072, 11073 of 2020

¶8

Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukovil, Rep. by its Hereditary Trustee and Poojari K.Kasirajan

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶12

Nungampakkam,

¶13

Chennai – 600 034.

¶14

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶16

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶17

4.The Fit Person / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Moolanathaswamy Thirukovil, Thenkarai, Vadipatti, Madurai District. .. Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in No.Nil dated 07.09.2020 and the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1497/2018/Aa1 dated --.07.2018 and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.P.Subburaj, Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶23

Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan for R.4 *****

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner filed this writ petition as against the order of appointment of Fit Person to Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukovil on the ground that it was passed without providing him an opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reasons.

¶26

2.Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted

¶27

that the petitioner is a poosari and he is maintaining the affairs of the

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/6

¶30

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶31

Temple. But, he is not the Hereditary Trustee. For the custody of the Temple and for safeguarding the properties of the Temple, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner is not having any locus to ask for any notice, inasmuch as he is not the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple.

¶32

3.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side.

¶33

4.The petitioner claims that he is the Hereditary Trustee of the subject Temple. The respondents though took a stand that the petitioner is only a Poosari of the Temple, have made the impugned communication by addressing the petitioner as the Temporary Administrator. The respondents claim that in order to safeguard the properties of the Temple and the income of the Temple, they have appointed the Fit Person. However, the impugned order has been passed without any reasonings and without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

¶34

5.Therefore, the orders impugned in this writ petition dated 07.09.2020 and 01.08.2018 are set aside. If there is no proper

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/6

¶37

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶38

administration in the Temple, it is open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and to pass reasonable orders, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to file necessary application before the second respondent / Joint Commissioner u/s.63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application is filed, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

¶39

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

Index : Yes / No 06.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/6

¶43

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶44

¶45

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungampakkam,

¶46

Chennai – 600 034.

¶47

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶48

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶49

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.

¶50

5/6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶53

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶54

¶55

WP(MD)No.13229 of 2020

¶56

06.10.2023

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

6/6

Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukovil v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Vinayagar Thirukovil 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

B.Dhanabalan, Vs the Chairman, Tn Small

U.Lizammal Urmese, Vs the Commissioner

M.Krishnan, Vs the Secretary to Government

Badhusha Vs the Secretary to Govt.

S.Sadagopa Ramanujam Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Tamilnadu Harijan Sevak Sangh Vs the District Collector