Quashed

Muthupandi. a v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP(MD)/15486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A non-hereditary trustee of a village temple challenged an order said to misread a prior High Court direction allowing family members to conduct poojas only if seven generations of administration were verified. Recording counsel's agreement that the families may worship pending O.A.No.6 of 2023, the court set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.06.2024 set aside; respondents 3 to 7 permitted to worship and participate in temple poojas pending O.A.No.6 of 2023.

Muthupandi. a Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.13539 of 2024

A.Muthupandi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶13

Sivagangai District.

¶14

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶16

Ramanathapuram District.

¶17

3.K.Venkatesan

¶18

4.N.Kumaraguru

¶19

5.S.Ramachandran

¶20

6.C.Shanmugathai

¶21

7.P.Vengatesh

¶22

8.Backiyalakshmi

¶23

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

¶24

1/8

¶25

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶26

9.R.Madasami ... Respondents

¶27

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned order on the file of the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.3680-63/2018/A7, dated 11.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal and as devoid of merits and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.Raja. Karthikeyan

¶29

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader For R-3 to R-7 : Ms.N.Barathi For R-8 & R-9 : No appearance

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 11.06.2024 on the premise that it proceeds on a gross misconception of the orders/directions of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.26041 of 2023 dated

¶32

01.11.2023 and thus arbitrary and illegal.

¶33

The petitioner was appointed as a non-hereditary trustee by the second

¶34

respondent herein vide order dated 21.06.2023 in respect of Arulmigu Vadakku Vasal Selliyamman Temple situated at Vadakkur Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Earlier, a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.26041 of

¶35

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

¶36

2/8

¶37

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶38

2023 was filed by respondents 3 to 7 herein, challenging the above order dated 21.06.2023, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a non-hereditary trustee, on the premise that they are administering and maintaining the subject temple for more than 7 generations and an application has also been taken out by them under Section 63(b) of the Act for a declaration to declare them as hereditary trustee in O.A.No.6 of 2023 which is stated to be pending.

¶39

While so, this Court vide order dated 01.11.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.26041 of 2023 observed that the order of the second respondent dated 21.06.2023 does not warrant any interference and a direction was issued to the first respondent herein to conclude the proceedings in O.A.No.6 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible. Importantly, it further provided that if it is found that the petitioners were administering the temple for the past 7 generations, they shall be permitted to function as administrators along with the non-hereditary trustee i.e., the petitioner herein. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶40

“6. Though the petitioners claim that they are administering the said Temple for the past seven generations and have filed an application to declare them as Hereditary Trustees under Section 63(b) of the said Act,

¶41

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

¶42

3/8

¶43

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶44

the third respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Ramanathapuram District, has appointed the fifth respondent as Non-Hereditary Trustee only for administration and maintaining the properties of the Temple properly. Therefore, no interference is required with the impugned order passed by the third respondent. However, the second respondent, namely, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai District, shall conclude the proceedings in O.A.No.6 of 2023 filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it is veracious that the petitioners are administering the said Temple for the past seven generations, they shall be permitted to function as Administrators of the said Temple along with the Non Hereditary Trustee. In the event, if the fifth respondent takes any decision dominating the administration or with regard to the properties of the Temple, the petitioners are at liberty to report the same before the third respondent.”

¶45

The impugned order further proceeds on the basis that this Court in W.P.(MD)No.26041 of 2023 has granted permission to respondents 3 to 8 to

¶46

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

¶47

4/8

¶48

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶49

perform the poojas over looking the fact that the above direction was subject to the condition that the petitioner is found to have administered the temple for the past generations. Relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:

¶50

ghh;it (2)-y; fhZk; Fwpg;gpd; K:yk; nkw;go jpUf;nfhapypy; guk;giuahf g{i$ bra;a[k; Kiw bjhlu;ghf kDjhuh;fshy; tHf;F bjhLf;fg;gl;L> nkw;go tHf;fpy; g{i$ bra;a kDjhuu;fSf;F mDkjp tHq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶51

ghu;it (3)-y; fhZk; Fwpg;gpy; nkw;go jpUf;nfhapypy; g{i$ bra;a ePjpkd;wk; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;j gpd;dUk; jpUf;nfhapypy; EiHa tplhky; jLf;fpwhu;fs; vd kD mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶52

Vdnt nkw;go jpUf;nfhapypy; upl; tHf;F kDjhuh;fis g{i$ bra;tjw;F vt;tpj jil Vw;gLj;jhkYk;> ePjpkd;w cj;juit eilKiwgLj;jt[k;> cupa xj;JiHg;ig ey;fplt[k; nkw;go jpUf;nfhapypd; guk;giu my;yhj mwq;fhtyUf;F bjuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶53

jtwpd; nkw;go kDjhuu;fshy; ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;F bjhlug;god; jq;fisna KGg; bghWg;ghf;fg;gl;L nky; eltof;if bjhlug;gLk; vdt[k; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ.

¶54

Aggrieved by the above order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who has been appointed as non hereditary trustee by the second respondent herein.

¶55

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

¶56

5/8

¶57

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶58

6 . The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 would submit that claiming their rights as hereditary trustees, an Original Application in O.A.No.6 of 2023 was filed, which is pending consideration before the first respondent. They would only request this Court that they may be permitted to worship and participate in the pooja, which is conducted in the subject Temple, which was agreed to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is also made clear that their rights as hereditary trustees will be decided in the O.A.

¶59

7 . Recording the same, the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 is set aside.

¶60

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶61

22.08.2024

¶62

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶63

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

¶64

6/8

¶65

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶66

To:

¶67

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶68

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶69

Sivagangai District.

¶70

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶71

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶72

Ramanathapuram District.

¶73

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

¶74

7/8

¶75

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶76

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶77

BTR

¶78

W.P(MD)No.15486 of 2024

¶79

22.08.2024

¶80

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

¶81

8/8

Muthupandi. a v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthupandi. a 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthumari Manamagil Mandram Vs The State Tax Officer

Joy Recreation Club Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Rajan .C Vs The Commissioner

M/s.v.Sanguine Exim Vs The State Tax Officer

F.Kaleel Rahman Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Ravi Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise