Allowed

Saravanakumar v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC7 Jun 2024WP(MD)/3665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notifications inviting applications for non-hereditary trustee posts and recommending temple takeover. Court held respondents cannot appoint trustees without temple falling under HR&CE Act, quashing the notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notification dated 02.02.2023 quashed; W.P. No. 4986 of 2023 closed.

Saravanakumar Vs The Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3436 & 4650 of 2023

¶8

Saravanakumar

¶9

... Petitioner in both W.Ps.

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶13

Chennai.

¶14

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶15

B-Salai, Elisnagar, Opp.Electricity Distribution Board, Madurai.

¶16

3.Arumugam ... Respondents in W.Ps.

¶17

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.2630-2021-10/E3, and dated 19.02.2023 bearing

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 11_

¶19

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶20

reference Na.Ka.No.613/2018/Aa1, on the files of the second respondent herein and quashing the same and consequently directing the first and second respondents not to interfere with the day to day administration of Arulmigu Om Sri Kamachi Amman Thirukovil, Melur.

¶21

For Petitioner in both W.P.s. : No appearance

¶22

For R1 & R2 in both W.P.s. : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶23

For R3 in both W.P.s. : No appearance

¶24

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶25

By this common order, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed

¶26

of.

¶27

2.These Writ Petitions were heard at length on 26.04.2024 in the presence of Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, this case was adjourned to 07.06.2024 (today) for further arguments by the learned counsel for petitioner. Today, there is no representation for the petitioner. I therefore propose to dispose of these Writ Petitions based on the notes which I have made during the previous hearing on 26.04.2024.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 2 of 11_

¶29

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶30

In these two Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the following impugned communication and notification issued by the second respondent:-

¶31

Sl.	W.P.(MD)	Impugned	Ref. No.
No.	No.	Communication /
		notification dated
1	3665/2023	02.02.2023	Na.Ka.No.2630-2021-10/E3
2	4986/2023	19.02.2018	Na.Ka.No.613/2018/Aa1

¶32

In W.P.(MD) No.4986 of 2023, the petitioner has challenged the impugned communication of the second respondent Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai addressed to the first respondent Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, on 19.02.2018, wherein, it has been stated as follows:-

¶33

“vdNt> ,j;jpUf;Nfhapypd; eyd; fUjpAk;> mtru mtrpaj;ij Kd;dpl;Lk;> epHthfj;jpid rPHnra;jpLk; nghUl;Lk;> jpUf;Nfhapypd; tUthapid ngUf;fp jpUf;Nfhapypd; ngahpy; nfhz;LtUtjw;F Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapypid ,j;Jiw fl;Lg;ghl;bd; fPo; nfhz;Ltuyhnkd ghHit 3-y; fhZk; Fwpg;gpy; Ma;tH Kjywpf;if rkHg;gpj;Js;shH vd;w tpguk; gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 11_

¶35

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶36

vdNt> Nkw;gb Ma;tH mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapy; Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapypd; epHthf rPHNfl;bid Kiwg;gLj;jTk;> jpUf;Nfhapy; tUthia Kiwahf tiuKiu gLj;jTk; jpUf;Nfhapy; mirAk; mirah nrhj;Jf;fis ghJfhf;fTk; jpUf;Nfhapy; tUthapid ngUf;Ftjw;Fk; Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapypid ,j;Jiw fl;Lg;ghl;bd; fPo; nfhz;Ltuyhnkd;w tpguk; gzpe;J njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”

¶37

The specific case of the petitioner is that there is only recommendation to take over the temple by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and no order is passed so far to bring it under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. In stead of, the second respondent Assistant Commissioner by a notification dated 02.02.2023 bearing reference Na.Ka.No. 2630-2021-10/E3 which is impugned in W.P.(MD) No.3665 of 2023 has invited applications for the post of non-hereditary trustee under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶38

The specific case of the petitioner is that the temple is outside the bounds of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It is submitted that the temple property was purchased by the

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 11_

¶40

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶41

members of a particular community (Visvakarma Community) by a Sale Deed dated 11.07.1949 and since then, the temple has been developed by the members of the particular community and that all along, there was no interference with the management of the temple right from its inception in the year 1949.

¶42

It is submitted that in absence of any order to take over the temple under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the communication dated 19.02.2018 [impugned in W.P.(MD) No.4986 of 2023] addressed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner to the first respondent Commissioner recommending to bring the temple under the control of the Department and the notification dated 02.02.2023 [impugned in W.P.(MD) No.3665 of 2023] issued by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner calling for the application to the post of non-hereditary trustee under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 are without any legal basis. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned communication and the notification are liable to be quashed.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 11_

¶44

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶45

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first and second respondents would submit that all public temples are covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Specifically, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first and second respondents would draw attention to the preamble to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and Section 1(3) of the Act, as per which, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 apply to all Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Endowments including the incorporated Dewaswoms and incorporated Dewaswoms.

¶46

The learned Special Government Pleader for the first and second respondents would further draw attention to Section 6(18) and (20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to substantiate the arguments. It is submitted that the subject temple comes within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and it is not a denomination temple. It is further submitted that if the temple is denomination temple, it is for the petitioner

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 11_

¶48

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶49

to file a suit for declaration of temple as denomination temple and therefore outside the bounds of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶50

It is further submitted that the entire exercise is carried out by the second respondent pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16372 of 2017 filed by the third respondent herein. It is submitted that by the said order dated 04.09.2017 in W.P. (MD) No.16372 of 2017 filed by the third respondent, this Court had directed the Joint Commissioner and the Inspector of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to dispose of the proceedings initiated on 04.07.2017 on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the third respondent herein (the petitioner therein) as well as the sixth to ninth respondents therein, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The petitioner herein was the seventh respondent therein.

¶51

Hence, it is submitted that it is pursuant to the direction of this Court, the communication dated 19.02.2018 [impugned in W.P.(MD) No.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 11_

¶53

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶54

4986 of 2023] was addressed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner to the first respondent Commissioner. It is submitted that wherever irregularities in the management of the temple are noticed, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department interferes with the same and under these circumstances, the power is exercised under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶55

It is submitted that there are no merits in the challenge to the communication dated 19.02.2018 [impugned in W.P.(MD) No.4986 of 2023] addressed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner to the first respondent Commissioner recommending to bring the temple under the control of the Department and the notification dated 02.02.2023 [impugned in W.P.(MD) No.3665 of 2023] issued by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner calling for the application to the post of non-hereditary trustee under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first and second respondents prays for dismissal of these Writ Petitions.

¶56

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

¶57

____________ Page No. 8 of 11_

¶58

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶59

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Special

¶60

Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.04.2024 and having perused the documents filed by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference as the respondents cannot appoint a non-hereditary trustee without the temple coming within the purview of the H.R. & C.E. Department. Therefore, the impugned notification dated 02.02.2018 is quashed. Since there is only a recommendation in impugned order dated 19.02.2018, nothing survives for adjudication in W.P.(MD) No.4986 of 2023. The respondents are at liberty to take over the control of the temple as per the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 based on the recommendation dated 19.02.2018.

¶61

In the result, W.P.(MD) No.3665 of 2023 is allowed and W.P. (MD) No.4986 of 2023 is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶62

07.06.2024

¶63

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order

¶64

JEN

¶65

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

¶66

Page No. 9 of 11

¶67

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶68

Copy To:

¶69

1.The Commissioner,

¶70

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

¶71

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶72

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, B-Salai, Elisnagar, Opp.Electricity Distribution Board, Madurai.

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 10 of 11_

¶74

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023

¶75

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶76

JEN

¶77

W.P.(MD) Nos.3665 & 4986 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3436 & 4650 of 2023

¶78

07.06.2024

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 11 of 11_

Saravanakumar v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanakumar 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

M.Ramaiya Vs The District Collector

Sethupathy Padimathar D Vs The Commissioner

N.Marimuthu Vs The Joint Commissioner

Ruban Devadhas.N Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kumaravel Vs The District Collector

Kumar @ Kandasamy Vs The Commissioner