Allowed

Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman v. the Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jan 2025WP(MD)/15743/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two temples declared denomination temples outside the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act challenged departmental communications demanding details in person. Relying on two Division Bench judgments holding the Department has no power over these denomination temples, the court held the impugned orders lacked authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; writ petitions allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.12693 and 12886 of 2021

¶9

W.P.(MD) No.15743 of 2021:

¶10

Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Devasthanam, Vadkaarai, Periyakulam, Rep., by its President, Mr.V.Venkatraman, Sri Kannika Parameswari Temple, Vadakarai, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶11

.. Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board,

¶15

Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.

¶16

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

¶17

Madurai-1.

¶18

3.The Inspector,

¶19

Hindu Religious and Charitable

¶20

_________Page 1 of 8

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶23

Endowment Board, Periyakulam.

¶24

4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶25

.. Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings impugned order dated 07.08.2021 and quash the same.

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.15952 of 2021:

¶28

Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Thirukoil, 144, Bazaar Street, Uppukottai, Theni District, Rep., through its Managing Trustee, A.Subramanian.

¶29

.. Petitioner

¶30

Vs.

¶31

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.

¶32

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

¶33

Madurai-1.

¶34

_________Page 2 of 8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶37

3.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Dindigul.

¶38

4.The Assistant Auditing Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

¶39

Madurai.

¶40

.. Respondents

¶41

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the 4^th respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.292/2021 dated 28.07.2021 and quash the same.

¶42

In both W.Ps.

¶43

For Petitioner : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶44

COMMON ORDER

¶45

The challenge in the writ petitions is to the communications issued

¶46

by the Department calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain details with regard to the petitioner-temple in person.

¶47

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

¶48

_________Page 3 of 8

¶49

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶50

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-temple had been

¶51

declared to be a denomination temple which would not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Two Division Bench judgments have been placed on record in respect of the very same temple in W.A.(MD) No.1279 of 2015, dated 14.08.2018 and W.A.(MD) No.487 of 2009, dated 29.10.2013, where it was held that there was no power with the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department for the administration of the temple including the constitution of a managing committee and the authority of the Department to seek contribution to the endowment fund from the denomination temple. This fact cannot be disputed by the respondents, as the respondents were parties to the said proceedings. For better appreciation, it would be useful to extract the relevant paragraphs of the Division Bench judgments as under:

¶52

W.A.(MD) No.487:

¶53

“9. Considering the character of the Temple mentioned in the petition and also considering the direction given in the letter dated 24.08.2005, it is needless to say that the second respondent has

¶54

_________Page 4 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶57

exceeded his limit and further as pointed out earlier that no power of administration so as to constitute managing committee does not vest with the respondents. Under the said circumstances, the letter dated 24.08.2005 is liable to be quashed.”

¶58

W.A.(MD) No.1279 of 2015:

¶59

“4. A perusal of the order passed by a Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.487 of 2009 dated 29.10.2013, it was observed that considering the character of the temple mentioned in the petition and also the direction in the letter dated 24.08.2005, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department had exceeded its limit. The respondent has got no power for administration of the said Temple since a decree was obtained before the Civil Court stating that the said temple is a denomination temple and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board has got no jurisdiction over the same.”

¶60

In view of the categorical decision of the two Division Bench of this Court, I am inclined to hold that the impugned orders in these writ petitions have been made without any authority. In such view of the

¶61

_________Page 5 of 8

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶64

matter, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶65

22.01.2025

¶66

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr

¶67

_________Page 6 of 8

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶70

¶71

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board,

¶72

Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.

¶73

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

¶74

Madurai-1.

¶75

3.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Periyakulam.

¶76

4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶77

Page 7 of 8

¶78

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

¶79

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶80

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶81

abr

¶82

W.P.(MD) Nos.15743 and 15952 of 2021

¶83

Dated: 22.01.2025

¶84

_________Page 8 of 8

¶85

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

Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman v. the 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

A. Aysha Shibana Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Venkatachalam Vs The State Tax Officer

P.Sivakumar Vs The Joint Commissioner

K. Jeyachandran Vs The Commissioner

Ponselvan v Vs The Joint Commissioner

A.Ravi Vs The Commissioner