Madras High Court

S.Sakthivel Raja vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 December, 2021

                                                                       W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 09.12.2021

                                                   CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

                                           W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015
                                                      and
                                             M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015


                     S.Sakthivel Raja                                     : Petitioner
                                                       Vs.


                     1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                        Rep. by Chief Secretary to the Government,
                        Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.


                     2. The Secretary to Government,
                        Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment
                        Department,
                        Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

                     3. The Commissioner,
                        Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments,
                        Chennai – 600 034.

                     4. The President,
                        Madapuram Mukuntha Nadar Uravinmurai Nala Sangam,
                       (Registered No.158/12), Madapuram,
                       Thiruppuvanam Post and Taluk, Sivagangai District. : Respondents
                     PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                     1/14
                                                                                      W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

                     dispose my representation dated 22.01.2015 for seeking administration
                     and maintenance of the Madapuram Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Iyyanar
                     and Arulmigu Bathrakaliyamman Temple, Madapuram, Sivagangai
                     District in favour of the Madapuram Mukuntha Nadar community people
                     as per the customary rights in the temple within time as stipulated by this
                     Court.
                                          For Petitioner   : Mr.S.Karthik
                                          For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
                                                               Additional Government Pleader
                                                               for R1 to R3
                                                               Mr.S.Maruthupandian
                                                               for Mr.R.Mathiyalagan for R4
                                                          ORDER

********************

Captioned main writ petition is more than half a decade old in this

Court. It is more than six years old as it was filed on 24.03.2015 and it

was admitted on 26.03.2015. The order of admission made on 26.03.2015

reads as follows:

'Admit. Notice'

2. Today, Mr.S.Karthik, learned counsel on record for the lone writ

petitioner, Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader on

behalf of respondents 1 to 3 (official respondents) and

Mr.S.Maruthupandian, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Mathiyalagan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

learned counsel for fourth respondent (private respondent) are before me.

To be noted, the name of co-counsel for fourth respondent Mr.M.Ramesh

stands deleted as learned counsel has since been appointed as a State

counsel.

3. The prayer in the captioned main writ petition is fairly simple as

it seeks disposal of 'writ petitioner's representation dated

22.01.2015' (hereinafter referred to as 'said representation' for the sake of

convenience and clarity) pertaining to a Temple which goes by the name

'Madapuram Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Iyyanar and Arulmigu

Bathrakaliyamman Temple', situate in Madapuram, Sivagangai District

(hereinafter referred to as 'said Temple' for the sake of convenience and

clarity). In other words, captioned writ petition seeks to mandamus the

respondents to dispose of said representation.

4. The said representation is at page 62 of the typed set of papers

and it runs up to page 93. In other words, it is a 32 page representation.

This verbose representation is addressed to the Chief Secretary of the

Government of Tamil Nadu and it also describes the Commissioner and

Secretary of the 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

Department' (which shall hereinafter referred to as 'TNHR&CE Dept' for

the sake of convenience and clarity) as respondents 1 and 2, respectively.

The writ petitioner has described himself not only as a petitioner but as

an appellant (Bky; KiwaPl;L kDjhuh;). The first and second pages of said

representation are as follows:

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

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

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

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

5. Therefore, what has been described as a representation i.e., said

representation is inter alia an appeal qua order of appointment of

Executive Officer for said Temple under Section 45 of 'the Tamil Nadu

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act

22 of 1959)' [hereinafter referred to as 'TNHR&CE Act' for the sake of

convenience and clarity].

6. Learned counsel for writ petitioner, adverting to said

representation in the case file submits that said Temple is being managed

by members of a particular community who have gathered themselves to

form a Sangam which goes by the name 'Madapuram Mukuntha Nadar

Uravinmurai Nala Sangam' (hereinafter referred to as 'said Sangam' for

the sake of convenience and clarity) and it is registered as a Society vide

registration No.158/12. Learned counsel also submits that the writ

petitioner is one of the members of said Sangam. To be noted President

of said Sangam has been arrayed as fourth respondent in the case on

hand.

7. Learned counsel submits that said Temple, has not been included

in any of the lists, i.e., lists under Section 46 of TNHR&CE Act and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

learned counsel goes on to submit that said Temple is therefore not a

public Temple. I would first deal with this aspect of the matter before

dealing with the prayer in the captioned writ petition.

8. The scheme of TNHR&CE Act is such that a 'religious

institution' within the meaning of Section 6(18) includes a 'temple' within

the meaning of Section 6(20) and therefore a temple per se comes within

the sweep of TNHR&CE Act, the sequitur is it becomes a public temple

subject only to exemption (if any) granted by the Government under

Section 4 of TNHR&CE Act or a declaration that it is a private temple.

Absent exemption under Section 4 by the Government/declaration that it

is a private temple every temple (with the exception of jain religious

institutions) becomes a public temple. As far as the list under Section 46

is concerned, that is the list which talks about listing temples depending

on the income which a temple generates. Section 46 reads as follows:

'[46. Commissioner to publish list of certain institutions.— The Commissioner shall publish, in the prescribed manner, a list of the religious institutions whose annual income, as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under sub-section (1) of section 92,—

(i) is not less than ten thousand rupees but is less than two https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

lakh rupees ;

(ii) is not less than two lakh rupees but is less than ten lakh rupees ;

(iii) is not less than ten lakhs rupees, and may, from time to time, modify such list in the prescribed manner :

Provided that the Commissioner shall not remove any institution from such list unless its annual income calculated as aforesaid has fallen below ten thousand rupees for three consecutive years: Provided further that if the annual income of any such institution calculated as aforesaid has–

(a) exceeded the limits specified in clause (i) and (ii); or

(b) fallen below the limits specified in clause (ii) or clause (iii), for three consecutive years, the Commissioner may alter the classification assigned to such institution in the list and enter the same under the appropriate classification in the said list.] '

9. A perusal of plain language of Section 46 makes it clear that a

temple not been included in the lists or a non-listed temple only means

that the income of the said Temple is less than INR 10,000/- per annum.

That does not mean that said temple does not come within the sweep of

TNHR&CE Act within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of

TNHR&CE Act. In my considered view, this position of law is very clear.

To put it differently, absent exemption under Section 4 or a declaratory https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

decree that it is a private temple, said Temple is obviously a public

temple.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, I carefully examined the

representation in the context of the submissions made by learned State

counsel. Learned State counsel made two main points and those two

main points are as follows:

1. Executive Officer has been appointed qua said Temple

under Section 45 of TNHR&CE Act and Executive

Officer is in administration of said Temple. That order

has not been assailed but merely a representation has

been sent;

2. The fourth respondent i.e., said Sangam has not given

any representation though the writ petitioner is a

member of the said Sangam. To be noted, this point is

not disputed by learned counsel for fourth respondent.

11. By way of reply, learned counsel for writ petitioner reiterated

the submissions made in his opening arguments.

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

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

12. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, I am not

inclined to accede to the prayer in the captioned main writ petition and

the reasons are as follows:

(a) A person having interest is an expression which is

defined qua TNHR&CE Act. To be precise, it is defined under

Sub-section (15) of Section 6 which reads as follows:

'(15) “person having interest” means—

(a) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs;

(b) in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat;

(c) in the case of a specific endowment, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of the service or charity, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the charity;

(d) in case of samadhi, brindhavan or any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose, a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in such religious institution, or who is entiled to partake or in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.4415 of 2015

distribution of gifts thereat;'

There is nothing to demonstrate that the writ petitioner

qualifies as a person having interest qua said Temple;

(b) De hors the previous reason, an individual to seek a

mandamus should have a legal right. This principle has been

well entrenched in our jurisprudence vide judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Praga Tools case law [Praga

Tools Corporation Vs. Imanual and others reported in AIR

1969 SC 1306] way back in 1969. Absent legal right there

cannot be a prayer for mandamus;