Madras High Court
Kathiresan Poosarai vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 24 August, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.A.(MD) No. 1570 of 2021
AND
C.M.P.(MD).No.6551 of 2021
Kathiresan Poosarai
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Tourism, Culture and Religious
Endowments (RE3-1) Department.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
4. The Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner,
Arulmighu Irukkangudi Mariamman Temple,
Irukkangudi Post, Sattur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
5. S.R.M. Ramamoorthy
6. S.A. Rajendran Poosari
7. R. Soundarrajan Poosari
8. S. Marimuthu
9. R. Maharajan Poosari
10. M. Navarathinam
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set
aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed in W.P.(MD).No.7676 of 2018 and
allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr. M.Venkateseshan
For Respondents : Mr. P. Thilak Kumar
Government Advocate,
for R1 to R3
Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan
for R4
Mr. N. Dilip Kumar
for R5
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]
The appeal is directed against an order dated April 30, 2021, by
which the writ petitioner's grievance against the manner of conduct of an
inquiry has been repelled and the writ petition dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
2.This is the second round of proceedings. On an earlier occasion,
the writ petitioner had approached this Court with allegations of
wrongdoing against one or more of the private respondents herein. Such
earlier petition was disposed of by an order dated August 21, 2017, by
directing the Secretary to the Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light
of a representation made by the petitioner on July 26, 2016 and to pass an
appropriate order on merits in accordance with law. The operative part of
the order dated August 21, 2017 referred, inter alia, to Section 53(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
3.The relevant provision indicates who the appropriate authority
would be for the purpose of exercising the power to suspend, remove or
dismiss trustees.
4.Though the order dated August 21, 2017 required the Secretary to
consider the petitioner's representation, the Secretary has called upon the
Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
Department to conduct a detailed inquiry on the allegations levelled against
the trustees after providing a fair and equal opportunity to all persons
concerned and forward a report.
5.The primary contention of the petitioner before the writ court in the
second round of the proceedings was that since it was the Secretary to the
Government who was the appropriate authority in terms of Section 53(1)(a)
of the said Act, such Secretary could not have delegated his power to the
Commissioner. It may be noticed in such context that there is a distinction
made between religious institutions listed under clause (i), clause (ii) and
clause (iii) of Section 46 of the Act and who the appropriate authority would
be in each case to exercise the power of suspension, removal or dismissal of
trustees of the relevant religious institutions. Thus, Section 53(1)(a)
provides for the appropriate authority in respect of religious institutions
included in the list published under Section 46(iii) to be the Government; in
respect of religious institutions included in the list published under Section
46(ii), the appropriate authority would be the Commissioner; and, in respect
of religious institutions included in the list published under Section 46(i), it
would be the Joint or the Deputy Commissioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
6.Section 53(1) of the Act, in its appropriate interpretation, authorises
classes of persons who may exercise the power to suspend, remove or
dismiss trustees depending on the classification of the religious institutions
with which such trustees are associated. Thus, a Commissioner may not
suspend or remove or dismiss any trustee of any religious institution
included in the list published under Section 46(iii) of the Act; just as an
Assistant Commissioner may not suspend or remove or dismiss any trustee
in any of the three lists published under Section 46 of the said Act.
7.There is a distinction between who may suspend, remove or dismiss
a trustee and who may be involved in the process culminating in the
suspension or removal or dismissal of trustees. Just as a disciplinary
authority in service jurisprudence would not take upon the burden of
conducting the fact-finding inquiry and appoint an inquiry officer in such
regard, it is perfectly in order for an appropriate authority within the
meaning of the relevant expression in Section 53(1) of the Act to entrust the
fact-finding exercise to some other as long as the decision on the report
rendered upon the fact-finding exercise being completed is undertaken by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
the appropriate authority himself.
8.In this case, the Secretary is the appropriate authority. There is no
dispute in such regard. Indeed, it was the Secretary who was directed by the
order dated August 21, 2017 to take appropriate action.
9.While the Secretary considered the matter, he deemed it necessary
for a more elaborate fact-finding exercise to be undertaken. Accordingly, he
appointed a Commissioner in this case to inquire into the matter; just as in
disciplinary proceedings in service jurisprudence the disciplinary authority
has the power to engage some other official as the inquiry officer and
require the inquiry report to be presented before the disciplinary authority.
10.The relevant order passed by the Secretary has been noticed
hereinabove. It provides for the inquiry report to be furnished. It is needless
to say that such inquiry report will be furnished before the Secretary,
whereupon the Secretary, will decide whether, based on the findings in the
inquiry report, any action is called for. It is then that the Secretary may
forward the findings of the inquiry that he agrees with, if they find any fault
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
with any trustee, to the relevant trustee for an explanation to be furnished in
respect of the charges. The ultimate consideration upon the reply of the
trustee being received will be that of the Secretary, who is undoubtedly the
appropriate authority in this case.
11.There is no merit in the appellant's assertion that the mere
appointment of an inquiry officer amounts to delegation of the authority
required to be exercised by the appropriate authority as defined in Section
53(1) of the Act. There is no infirmity in the order impugned dated April 30,
2021, as it appropriately held that an inquiry could, in such circumstances,
be directed to be conducted by some other official.
12.It is hoped that the inquiry is now conducted and completed as
expeditiously as possible and the report furnished to the Secretary for
appropriate action in accordance with law.
13.W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021 is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.(MD)No.
6551 of 2021 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (M.D., J.)
24.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MR/RM
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Tourism, Culture and Religious
Endowments (RE3-1) Department.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
4. The Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner,
Arulmighu Irukkangudi Mariamman Temple,
Irukkangudi Post, Sattur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1570 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
MR/RM
W.A.(MD) No. 1570 of 2021
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
