Disposed

Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC18 Mar 2024WP/3046/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order directing handover of charge of a temple based on alleged misclassification as a religious institution. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the First Respondent under Section 63(a) to declare non-status. The Court directed the First Respondent to examine the application and conduct an enquiry with hearing.

What did the court decide?

First Respondent to examine application under Section 63(a), conduct enquiry with hearing, and pass reasoned order; Writ Petition disposed.

Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar Vs the Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P. No. 3322 of 2024

¶8

Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar Samudyakudam, No. 1A, Ezhuthukara Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2 rep. herein by its President R.K. Gopinathan, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Son of Sri. Krishna Chettiar, No. 185, Appu Chetty Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Salem.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Admn. Endowments Department, Salem.

¶13

The Fit Person, Arulmighu Nataraja Bajanai Madam, Ezhuthukkara Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.

¶14

C.Gopinath

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶19

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Third Respondent dated 01.02.2024 in Ref. ITMS 7791, quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. T.S.Vijaya Raghavan For Respondents : Mr. K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate (R1 to R3)

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard T.S.Vijaya Raghavan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.Karthikeyan, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First to Third Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶23

The Second Respondent by Proceedings No. 6872/2020-39/2 dated 23.12.2020 had appointed a Fit person for Arulmighu Nataraja Bajanai Madam, Shevapet, Salem, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Madam' for short), and by another Proceedings in Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No.10725/2023/Aa2 dated 13.12.2023 has appointed the Fourth Respondent as the Hereditary Trustee of the Madam. The Fourth Respondent, in turn, by Proceedings in Ref. ITMS 7791 dated

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶27

01.02.2024 had directed the President and Secretary of Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar Samudayakudam, which is the Petitioner in this Writ Petition to hand over charge of the said Madam to the Fourth Respondent. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the said order raising the contention that it is not a 'Religious Institution' within the meaning of Section 6(18) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'HR & CE Act' for short).

¶28

It has been brought to notice that after the filing of the Writ Petition on 08.02.2024, the Petitioner has on 12.02.2024 filed an application under Section 63(a) of the HR & CE Act before the First Respondent to declare that it is not a 'Religious Institution' and has been taken on his file as O.A. No. 2 of 2024 and listed on 03.04.2024 for hearing.

¶29

In view of the subsequent events, this Court without expressing any view on the merits of the controversy involved, passes the following order:

¶30

(i) the First Respondent shall immediately examine the claim made by the Petitioner in O.A. No. 2 of 2024 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled for the relief claimed;

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶34

(ii) if it is found that any other details or supporting documents is necessary,

¶35

the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 10 days for the same;

¶36

(iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements even thereafter, an enquiry shall be conducted affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and all other persons concerned to explain their position in that regard;

¶37

(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment; and

¶38

(v) the report of such compliance shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.

¶39

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶40

18.03.2024

¶41

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 22.05.2024. kv

¶42

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

¶43

4/6

¶44

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶45

¶46

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Salem.

¶47

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Admn. Endowments Department, Salem.

¶48

The Fit Person, Arulmighu Nataraja Bajanai Madam, Ezhuthukkara Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.

¶49

Copy to

¶50

The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶51

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

¶52

5/6

¶53

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶54

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶55

¶56

W.P. No. 3046 of 2024

¶57

18.03.2024

¶58

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

¶59

6/6

Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar 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

G.Venkatesh Raju Vs the Commissioner Cum Estate Officer

T.Gnaneswaran Vs the Secretary

M.Javeed Ali Vs the Chairman

M.Pazhanivelu Vs Chief Secretary

Perumal Babu Vs the Commissioner

A/m. Om Sri Bhavani Amman Vs The District Collector