Writ petition challenging rejection of impleadment petition in HC Act scheme framing proceedings. Court held petitioner can file fresh application after due hearing process instead of immediate impleadment.
Petition disposed with liberty to file fresh impleadment petition after providing opportunity of personal hearing to parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.17181 of 2024
G.Rajendran
... Petitioner
Vs.
1/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
9.Gawaskar
10.Thangapandi
11.Subbaiyan
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating with the impugned order in I.A.No.21 of 2023 in O.A.No.20 of 2022 dated 31.05.2024 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to implead the petitioner in O.A.No.20 of 2022 as per earlier orders of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Advocate General
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, whereby the impleading petition of the petitioner in the proceedings pending before the Joint Commissioner for framing a scheme in terms of Section 64 (1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act stood rejected.
2/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
2. It is submitted that earlier a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.4879 of 2023 was filed by the Secretary of the subject Temple on behalf of the trust viz., Arulmigu Sri Yamadharmarajan koil and Community Welfare Trust, whereby the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thanjavur District was challenged with a prayer to direct the respondent authorities to record and register the Poosari appointed by the trustees of the Temple as 'Poosari' for performance of customary poojas and other rituals in the petitioner temple for the period between 2023-2026. The petitioner herein was arrayed as the fourth respondent in the said Writ Petition. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge was pleased to pass the order dated 19.04.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
“10. It is an admitted fact that a petition for framing a scheme is already pending before the authorities and in the said petition, the petitioner has stated that he and his community people are in control and management of the said temple. The fourth respondent has filed a petition to implead himself. While so, it is not known as to how respondents 1 to 3 have appointed the fourth respondent without notice whatsoever to the Trustees. Even assuming
3/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
that respondents 1 to 3 are yet to recognise the Trustees as the administrators of the temple, they are aware of a rival claim with regard to the temple in question and due process requires that all parties concerned should be put on notice before orders are passed.
11. Taking note of the fact that the impugned order is passed without notice or an enquiry of all interested parties, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 is set aside. It is made clear that the Poosari who has been appointed by the Trustees of the petitioner-temple shall continue as Poosari. However, it is open to the fourth respondent to approach the authorities concerned for redressal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
3. Aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 19.04.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.4879 of 2023, the fourth respondent therein/petitioner herein has
filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.778 of 2024, wherein this Court on 26.04.2024 was pleased to pass the following order:
“11.In the result, the following orders are passed in this Writ Appeal:
(i) That the poosari appointed by the HR & CE Department ie., the present appellant, namely G.Rajendran, can continue to be the Oru kala Poosari for performing
4/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
only Yamakandakalam pooja. Insofar as poosari nominated by the fourth respondent Trust ie., Muruganandham would act as a poosari to perform the poojas for all other times, except Yamakandakalam.
(ii) This arrangement can continue till the final decision is made by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Thanjavur in O.A.No.20 of 2022 and thereafter, depending upon the decision to be made by the Joint Commissioner by framing a scheme or otherwise, the parties can abide by the said decision and accordingly can act upon.
(iii) In view of the aforesaid interim arrangement, application No.20 of 2022 pending before the Joint Commissioner, Thanjavur shall be decided on merits and dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12.In view of the aforesaid decision, the order passed by the learned Judge which is impugned herein is accordingly modified to the terms indicated above and the Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.”
4. Pursuant to the above order, an impleading petition was filed by the
petitioner which is rejected vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024, finding that
5/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
Poosari of the Temple is an employee and thus he is not a party interested in
framing of a scheme. It is the above order rejecting the impleading petition of the petitioner by the second respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not only a poosari but he is also a trustee of the above Temple and an interested person. Thus, rejection of the impleading petition under Section 64 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, is illegal and erroneous.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3, would submit that the Joint Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 64 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, while settling a scheme is under an obligation to consult the trustee and the persons having interest in the prescribed manner and after such consultation, if satisfied, that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he may by orders settle a scheme for administration of the institution.
6/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the
petitioner may resubmit the impleading petition along with the relevant materials to show that he is a person having interest, which shall be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner would also agree.
8. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh impleading petition, in the proceedings pending before the Joint Commissioner / 2 nd respondent. If any such application is filed, the same would be considered and orders would be passed, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.08.2024
NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr Note: Issue Order Copy on 27.08.2024.
7/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
To:
8/9
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD)No.20248 of 2024
27.08.2024
9/9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a person appointed as Poosari is an employee or a person interested for the purpose of impleadment scheme proceedings.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's impleadment petition is legal and proper.
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file a fresh impleadment petition after providing opportunity of hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Rajendran
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thanjavur
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thanjavur
Mohammed Shaffiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
