M.Arumugam Vs the Commissioner

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Quo-Warranto, Directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to disqualify the 3rd respondent from holding the office of Trustee of Arulmigu Ekamarewar Tirukoil, Aminjikarai, Chennai and pass.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Hari Krishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.N.R.R.Arun Nataraja, Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3

¶17

__________ Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 14006 of 2025

¶20

Order

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to disqualify the 3rd respondent from holding the office of Trustee of Arulmigu Ekamarewar Tirukoil, Aminjikarai,

¶22

Case of the petitioner is that Arulmigu Ekamarewar Tirukoil, Aminjikarai, Chennai, is very ancient temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva. The Inspector, HR and CE Department, vide notification dated 17.12.2021, called for application from eligible candidates for selection to the post of Trustee of the said temple by prescribing certain terms and conditions. The 3^rd respondent has also been selected as one of the Trustee of the said Temple. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the selection of the 3^rd respondent as the Trustee of the said temple, is against the terms and condition mentioned in the notification dated 17.12.2021, as the 3^rd respondent is in occupation of temple land and has not paid rents to the Temple. Hence, the petitioner submitted representations, questioning the selection of 3^rd respondent as the Trustee of the Temple, however no action has been taken so far. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection of the 3^rd respondent as the Trustee is contrary to terms and condition of the selection,

¶24

Page2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 14006 of 2025

¶27

because, in one of the conditions, it was specifically stipulated that a Certificate should be obtained from the Temple that the candidate is not a lessee/encroacher/trespasser of temple lands. In the present case on hand, the 3^rd respondent has encroached the temple land and constructed building over the land and let out portions to various persons and collecting rents, which is contrary to the terms and condition of the selection. Hence, the petitioner prays for appropriate direction to disqualify the 3^rd respondent.

¶28

Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner limited his prayer to the extent that this Court may issue direction to the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 10.12.2024, after issuing notice to the 3^rd respondent and pass appropriate orders.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for

¶31

such an order being passed by this Court.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

¶33

counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶34

In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing

¶35

for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs

¶36

Page3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 14006 of 2025

¶39

the first respondent to conduct enquiry on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 10.02.2025, after issuing notice to the 3^rd respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the 3^rd respondents and other concerned persons including the petitioner.

¶40