Allowed

Soma.Somasundaram v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP(MD)/7380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an appointment of an Executive Officer continuing beyond five years violates the law. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment and the 2015 Rules, the Court ordered the appointment to cease immediately upon receipt of the order.

What did the court decide?

The appointment of the Executive Officer of the Temple shall cease to be in force with immediate effect from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Soma.Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 7380 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No. 7380 of 2020 and

¶7

W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 6827 and 6828 of 2020

¶8

Soma. Somasundaram Hereditary Trustee, Sri Sundaraswamigal Athishtanam, Arimalam, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy.

¶12

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Pudukottai.

¶13

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Muthumariamman Temple, Konnaiyur. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. (MD) No. 7380 of 2020

¶18

Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.58554/2008/L5, dated 28.03.2010 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan for Mr.S.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr. P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

¶22

Mr. P.Subbaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶23

The Writ Petition challenges the Proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 58554/2008/L5 dated 28.03.2010 issued by the First Respondent appointing the Executive Officer of the Temple of the Fourth Respondent in the exercise of the powers under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

W.P. (MD) No. 7380 of 2020

¶28

It is the contention of the Petitioner, who has been treated as the hereditary trustee of the Temple of the Fourth Respondent by Proceedings No. 152/2018/Aa4 dated 30.10.2018 passed by the First Respondent, that the continuance of the Fourth Respondent as the Executive Officer of the Temple of the Fourth Respondent beyond five years cannot be sustained in law. In support thereof, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

¶29

in Dr. Subramanian Swamy -vs- State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2014) 5 SCC 75], in which the following observations have been made:-

¶30

“49. We would also like to bring on record that various instances whereby acts of mismanagement/maladministration/ misappropriation alleged to have been committed by Podhu Dikshitars have been brought to our notice. We have not gone into those issues since we have come to the conclusion that the power under the 1959 Act for appointment of an Executive Officer could not have been exercised in the absence of any prescription of circumstances/conditions in which such an appointment may be made. More so, the order of appointment of the Executive Officer does not disclose as for what reasons and under what circumstances his appointment was necessitated. Even otherwise, the order in which no period of its operation is prescribed, is not sustainable being ex facie arbitrary, illegal and unjust.”

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P. (MD) No. 7380 of 2020

¶34

It is brought to notice that after that authoritative pronouncement, the Government of Tamil Nadu in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 116 read with section 43-A and sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Act framed Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) which provides that the period of appointment of the Executive Officer for a Religious Institution cannot exceed five years at a time.

¶35

Inasmuch as the appointment of the Executive Officer of the Temple of the Fourth Respondent in the impugned order has been beyond five years from the date of the said order as well as the date on which the aforesaid Rules have came into force, the continuance of the Executive Officer of the Temple of the Fourth Respondent in terms of the impugned order cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, it is held that the appointment of the Executive Officer of the Temple of the Fourth Respondent shall cease to be in force with immediate effect from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Fourth Respondent.

¶36