1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P No.13988 of 2023
1.Sathiyamoorthy
2.R.Vijayakumar
3.Arun Kumar S
4.V.Prasanna Petitioners
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Near Trust Hospital, Perundurai Road,
Erode – 638 011.
3.The Executive Officer,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Arulmigu Ilayaperumal Thirukoil Premises, Erayamangalam,
Chozhasiramani Vazhi, Thiruchengode,
Namakkal District – 637 210. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
representation of the petitioners dated 28.01.2023 and consequently appoint
petitioners 3 and 4 as Hereditary Trustees in the place of the petitioners 1 and 2.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Amogh Simha
For Respondents : Mr.S.Yaswanth
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.01.2023 made by the petitioners, wherein, the 1st and 2nd petitioners have requested for appointing the 3rd and 4th petitioners as Hereditary Trustees in their places.
2.The case of the petitioners is that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed as the Hereditary Trustees of Arulmigu Korakuttai Prasanna Venkataramana Ilaya Perumal Swamy Thirukoil, Erayamangalam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. The 1st respondent through order dated 21.09.1977 made in A.P.No.32 of 1974 failed to recognize the hereditary trustees and the same became the subject matter of challenge before the Sub Court, Salem in O.S.No.149 of 1978. A Decree came to be passed on 04.08.1981 and the 1st and 2nd petitioners were declared to be hereditary trustees of the above said temple. Thereafter, the 1st and 2nd petitioners were functioning as the hereditary trustees and managing the affairs of the temple. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
3.The further case of the petitioners is that a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.19 of 2002 by the Molasi Kannan Kula Nattu Gounder Trust before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode seeking for a declaration that the said community is entitled to manage the affairs of the temple through its office bearers along with the 1st and 2nd petitioners, who were the hereditary trustees. The 1st and 2nd petitioners filed a memo in the said suit and reported before the Court that they have no objection for the declaration sought for in the said suit and the suit came to be decreed on 15.03.2022 after recording the memo filed by the 1st and 2nd petitioners.
4.Based on the above decree, the above said Trust filed O.P.No.5 of 2005 before the 2nd respondent, wherein, the scheme came to be framed with respect to the temple through proceedings dated 02.05.2006. The relevant portions in the scheme are extracted hereunder:
3/ehkf;fy; khtl;lk;. jpUr;br';nfhL tl;lk;.
,iwak';fyk;. mUs;kpF nfhuf;Fl;il ,isa
bgUkhs; (v) bt';fl;ukzRthkp jpUf;nfhapy;
eph;thfk; ,e;J rka mwepiya Ml;rpj;Jiw
rl;lg;gphpt[fspd; fPH; ,f;nfhapypw;F nryk; rg;Mh;ondl; $l;$; mth;fspd; X/v/149-78d; 4/8/81k; njjpa jPh;g;gpd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 go guk;giu mw';fhtyh;fs; vd mwptpf;fg;gl;l Ie;J egh;fSld; K:dW ; f;F Fiwahj Ie;Jf;Fk; kpfhj guk;giu my;yhj mw';fhtyh;fs; epakdk; bra;tjw;F bkhsrp ehL fd;d';Fy ehl;Lf;ft[z;lh;
,dj;jth;fsplkpUe;J njh;e; ;bjLf;fg;gLk; egh;fspy;
nkw;Twpa rl;ltpjpfspd;go jFjptha;e;j egh;fis
epakdk; bra;ag;glntz;Lk;/
4/gj;jp vz;/3d; go cs;s guk;giu
mw';fhtyh;fs; kw;Wk; guk;giu my;yhj
mw';fhtyh;fs; ,e;J rka mwepiya rl;lg;gphpt[ 45(1)d; fPH; ,j;jpUf;nfhapypw;F epakdk;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;s bray; mYtyUld; ,ize;J
bray;gl ntz;Lk;/
5.In line with the above scheme, the 1st and 2nd petitioners were functioning as the hereditary trustees along with the office bearers of the above said trust. Some misunderstanding took place and the office bearers of the trust did not recognize the 1st ad 2nd petitioners as the hereditary trustees. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16.03.2022 and it was agreed in the MOU that the 3rd and 4th petitioners will function as the hereditary trustees in the place of the 1 st and 2nd petitioners https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 in accordance with the scheme that was framed on 02.05.2006. A representation was made on 28.01.2023 in this regard to recognize the 3rd and 4th petitioners as the hereditary trustees. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.
6.Heard Mr.N.S.Amogh Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.S.Yaswanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were suspended from their position as hereditary trustees and hence, there is a permanent vacancy and therefore, the 1st and 2nd petitioners must make a proper application under Section 54 (1) of the Act to fill up the office of the hereditary trustee. The learned counsel submitted that even as per the representation dated 28.01.2023, the 1st and 2nd petitioners have admitted the fact that they were removed from hereditary trustee post and office bearers of the above said Trust were involved in the affairs of the temple and only subsequently there was a MOU during March, 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6
8.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were never removed from the post of Hereditary Trustees and the dispute was only between the 1st and 2nd petitioners and the office bearers of the trust which was subsequently resolved and in view of the same, the 1 st and 2nd petitioners continued as the hereditary trustees of the temple. To counter this argument, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced the written instructions received from the 3rd respondent wherein, it has been stated that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were suspended from the office of the hereditary trustee and the same has not been put to challenge by the 1st and 2nd petitioners.
9.In the considered view of this Court, the 1st and 2nd petitioners do not want to continue as the hereditary trustees and they want the 3rd and 4th petitioners to be considered to hold the office of the hereditary trustee in their places. This Court does not want to go into the dispute as to whether the 1st and 2nd petitioners continued to hold the office of the hereditary trustee or they have been removed. That dispute may not have any significance, since the 1st and 2nd petitioners do not want to continue in the office of the hereditary trustees and they only want the 3rd and 4th petitioners to be inducted to the office of the hereditary trustee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
10.In order to avoid any technicality and in order to stay clear from any controversy on facts, it will be more appropriate for the 1st and 2nd petitioners to make an application under Section 54 (1) of the Act before the 2nd respondent seeking for the appointment of the 3rd and 4th petitioners as hereditary trustees. On such application being made, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same after issuing notice to the office bearers of the Molasi Kannan Kula Nattu Gounder Trust. Thereafter, a decision shall be taken by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed in line with the earlier judgment and decree dated 04.08.1981 made in O.S.No.149 of 1978 and the scheme that was framed through proceedings dated 02.05.2006. In any event, this exercise shall be completed by the 2nd respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the 1st and 2nd petitioners.
11.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs.
01.06.2023
Index : Yes/No (2/2)
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Near Trust Hospital, Perundurai Road, Erode – 638 011.
3.The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Arulmigu Ilayaperumal Thirukoil Premises, Erayamangalam, Chozhasiramani Vazhi, Thiruchengode, Namakkal District – 637 210.
W.P No.13988 of 2023 01.06.2023 (2/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis