Allowed

Seetharaman.M v. the Commissioner

Madras HC21 Nov 2024WP(MD)/1700/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed a suspension order passed by the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of a temple, holding him an incompetent authority. The case mandated that the Board of Trustees, the competent authority under the HR & CE Act, initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh after providing due process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension order set aside. Board of Trustees directed to initiate departmental proceedings and conclude within four months after affording sufficient opportunity.

Seetharaman.M Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022 and WMP(MD) Nos.1502 of 2022

¶7

Seetharaman.M ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Nungambakkm, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

3.The Fit Person/Thakkar, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

4.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

¶13

5.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi.

¶14

1/15

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶17

6.The Commissioner, Tiruchendur Municipality, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

(R4 and R5 are Suo Motu impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 03.03.2022) (R6 is Suo Motu impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 23.03.2022)

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 2360/2021-2/U2 dated 21.12.2021 and quash the same as illegal.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajaraman For R1, R4 and R5 : Mr.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.Muthugeethaiyan

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner, who is an Archagar of Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur has filed this writ petition, challenging the order of suspension.

¶24

2.The petitioner, who is categorized as

¶25

''Thirisudhanthirargal'' is said to have taken some of the devotees

¶26

2/15

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶29

inside the temple on 16.12.2021, without following the queue system and without getting proper tickets. Therefore, the second respondent/the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the temple has contemplated an enquiry and by his order, dated 21.12.2021, suspended the petitioner from performing poojas. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶30

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

submits that in fact, the Assistant Commissioner has taken a journalist inside the temple as a VIP and that was questioned by this petitioner. Having questioned the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Before passing the order of suspension, prior notice was not given to the petitioner and no explanation has been offered from him. He further submits that for the incident that took place on 16.12.2021, the order of suspension has been passed on 21.12.2021, even without providing sufficient opportunity to this petitioner. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings, if any, has to be initiated only by the

¶32

3/15

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶35

Board of Trustees and not by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer is an incompetent authority to pass such an order of suspension, under Section 56 of the HR& CE Act.

¶36

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that ''Thirisudhanthirargal'' in Tiruchendur Temple are more in number and they are dominating the Administration of the temple by frequent interference. Though several circulars have been issued to regulate the administration of the temple, it is not in a proper manner. The Circular issued by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department, to regulate the procedures in the temple has been quashed by this Court that it has been issued without consulting the ''Thirisudhanthirargal''. He further submits that the ''Thirisudhanthirargal'' are not Archagars. They are only service holders. They cannot enter into the sanctum sanctorum and offer any prayer and do the Abhishekam/Aradhanai to the deity. Butters are the another group of Archagars. They are entitled to do poojas for Shanmugar and there is no issues from them. All these

¶37

4/15

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶40

issues are from these ''Thirisudhanthirargal'', who are expected to offer their prayers and to sing a prayer song. They are not supposed to take the devotees inside the temple, without following the queue system and without getting the entrance tickets. The order of suspension passed as against this petitioner is one such a similar incident, where the petitioner has taken more than 20 devotees inside the temple, without following the queue system and also without taking the special entrance tickets. Therefore, contemplating an enquiry, this petitioner was placed under suspension. Since this Court has entertained this writ petition, they have not proceeded further with the issuance of charge memo. The learned Special Government Pleader has conceded that the order of suspension or any disciplinary proceedings as against the employee of the temple can be issued only by the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension issued by the Executive Officer may be set aside with liberty to Board of Trustees or fit person to proceed further as against the petitioner.

¶41

5/15

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶44

5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and

¶45

also perused the materials placed on record.

¶46

6.This Court, while dealing with the issue has issued certain interim directions on 03.03.2022, based on which, a Circular was also issued by the Commissioner of HR & CE Department in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.30718/2018/Z-2, dated 07.03.2022. The said interim order and the Commissioner's Circular have been set aside by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 01.04.2022, that the directions have been issued in the form of public interest litigation, which cannot be passed in a writ petition, which was filed by an individual challenging an order of suspension. Thereafter, this writ petition is listed before me for final hearing.

¶47

The petitioner, an Archagar of Arulmighu Subramania

¶48

Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur has been placed under suspension, by order, dated 21.12.2021 (signed on 28.12.2021) that he has taken

¶49

6/15

¶50

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

¶51

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶52

some devotees inside the temple without following the queue system and without taking special entrance tickets. The Executive Officer has filed a statement before this Court that they are following a queue system, by which, they have facilitated Dharma Darshan, and special entrance tickets worth Rs.300/-. According to the Executive Officer, the devotees, who are passing through the Dharma darshanam will get darshan after one to two hours in ordinary days and two to four hours during the festival days and weekends. Since there is a delay in having darshan during festival days and weekends, some of ''Thirisudhanthirargal'' are taking the devotees in shortcut methods. In one such incident, the petitioner has indulged in an act of taking twenty such devotees without following queue system and without getting proper tickets. Therefore, action has been initiated as against the petitioner by suspending him from service. Some of the devotees, who are not in a position to wait in the queue may adapt for some shortcut methods to enter into the temple. If this is encouraged, there cannot be any proper administration. The temple administration is answerable for the devotees, who are

¶53

7/15

¶54

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

¶55

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶56

waiting in the queue in Dharma Darshan. Allowing some devotees in short cut method would definitely collapse the entire system in the temple. Therefore, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Department to curtail this practice cannot be found fault with. However, the disciplinary proceedings has to be initiated in the manner known to law, as contemplated under the HR & CE Act.

¶57

8.Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition on the ground that the impugned suspension order has been issued by an incompetent authority/ the second respondent herein. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. The Board of Trustees, who are the competent authority under the HR & CE Act, are directed to initiate the departmental proceedings as against this petitioner and to conclude the same after affording sufficient opportunity to this petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

8/15

¶59

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

¶60

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶61

It appears that the Law graduates are appointed as the

¶62

Executive Officers. However, it appears that some politically influenced persons have been appointed as Trustees of the temples by a Committee constituted by the Government. Section 25A and 26 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act deals with the qualification and disqualification of the Trustees as under:-

¶63

25-A. Qualifications of trustees.

¶64

A person shall be qualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of any religious institution or endowment(a) if he has faith in God;

¶65

(b) If he possesses good conduct and reputation and commands respect in the locality in which the religious institution or endowment is situated;

¶66

¶67

(d) if he possesses such other merits incidental thereto.

¶68

26. Disqualification of trustees.

¶69

(1) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of any religious institution

¶70

(a) if he does not profess the Hindu religion ;

¶71

(b) if he is not a citizen of India];

¶72

¶73

9/15

¶74

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

¶75

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶76

(d) if he is an undercharged insolvent ;

¶77

(e) if he is of unsound mind or is suffering from mental defect or infirmity which would render him unfit to perform the functions and discharge the duties of a trustee or is suffering from leprosy or any other loathsome disease (f) if he has been removed or dismissed from service under the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority];

¶78

(g) if he has been sentenced by a criminal court for an offence involving moral delinquency, such sentence not having been reversed or the offence pardoned;

¶79

(h) if he has acted adverse to the interest of the institution. (i) if he is in arrears of any kind due by him to any religious institution or endowment.

¶80

(1-A) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of a religious institution or endowment.-

¶81

(a) if he is interested in a subsisting lease of any property of, or contract made with or any work being done for the religious institution or endowment.

¶82

(b) if he is employed as a paid legal practitioner on behalf of or against the religious institution or endowment.

¶83

(2) If a trustee

¶84

(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in subsection (1) or sub-section (1-A); or 2[(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed

¶85

10/15

¶86

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

¶87

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶88

(i) in the case of trustee appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, to the Assistant Commissioner.

¶89

(ii) in the case of trustee appointed by the Joint/Deputy Commissioner, to the Joint / Deputy Commissioner ; and (iii) in any other case, to the Commissioner, his seat shall thereupon become vacant.]

¶90

(3) If any question arises as to whether a trustee has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of the Joint / Deputy Commissioner.

¶91

(4) If a hereditary trustee becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1), the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may supercede the trustee.

¶92

(5) Any person affected by an order of the Joint / Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may, within one month from the date of receipt of the order by him, appeal, against the order to the Commissioner.

¶93

(6) The trustee of a religious institution for which a Board of Trustees has been constituted shall cease to hold office if he absents himself from three consecutive meetings of such Board of Trustees within a period of two months :

¶94

10.The entire power is vested with the trustees as per the

¶95

provision under Section 56 of the HR & CE Act. If the trustees, who

¶96

11/15

¶97

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

¶98

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶99

are in a position to safeguard the interest of the temple are corrupt, then, the entire administration of the temple would be affected. The purpose of establishment of HR & CE Act itself is to maintain the temple and its properties in a proper manner. Therefore, this Court expects an amendment to the HR & CE Act with regard to the powers, which has been conferred on the trustees. In the event if the Government is not inclined to interfere with the powers, which already conferred on the Trustees, there must be some responsibility and accountability has to be fixed on the trustees. This Court is of the view that the qualification prescribed for the appointment of the trustees also needs to be reviewed. Even if a VIP has to get darshan, it must be regularized with certain guidelines in such a way that the common devotees, who are visiting the temple are not affected in any manner, by waiting in a queue for a long time for dharshan at the instance of the employees of the Temple and the VIPs.

¶100

11.The Circular, dated 07.03.2022 issued by the

¶101

Commissioner of HR & CE Department to regularize the day to day

¶102

12/15

¶103

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

¶104

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶105

affairs of the temple has been set aside by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court. It is always open to the Commissioner to regularize the administration of the temple, in consultation with the stalk holders.This Court suggests that sufficient CCTV cameras shall be affixed in the appropriate places in the Temple, wherever necessary, in order to monitor that the system is functioning in a proper manner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶106

21.11.2024

¶107

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes vrn

¶108

13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶109

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶110

¶111

1.The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Nungambakkm, Chennai.

¶112

2.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

¶113

3.The Fit Person/Thakkar, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

¶114

4.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

¶115

5.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi.

¶116

6.The Commissioner, Tiruchendur Municipality, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District

¶117

14/15

¶118

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

¶119

W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022

¶120

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶121

vrn

¶122

Order made in W.P(MD)No.1700 of 2022 and WMP(MD) Nos.1502 of 2022

¶123

21.11.2024

¶124

15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Seetharaman.M v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetharaman.M 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

Chandrapaul.M Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police

Senthamil Selvan.M Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Siva.M Vs the Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority

D.Gurusamy, Vs the Executive Engineer

Premkumar.R Vs The Superintendent of Police

Regina Begum.M Vs The Pricipal Accountant General (a and E)