Madras High Court
Saiva Pillaimar Samuthaya Nala ... vs The Commissioner on 13 December, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
Saiva Pillaimar Samuthaya Nala Sangam,
Through its Secretary,
G.Ponnambalam,
S/o. Ganapathia Pillai,
Ilayamuthur,
Palyamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Tirunelveli.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
3.The Inspector – East,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records in Na.Ka.No.15592/2013/m2 dated 27.04.2015 on the
file of second respondent and approve the name of the persons
elected as Trustees by the petitioner for Arulmigu Soundrapandia
Vinayagar and Arulmigu Pulamadasamy Temple, Ilayamuthur,
Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Ramesh,
Government Advocate
ORDER
***********
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listing on 08.12.2021 which
reads as follows:
'Mr.S.Manohar, learned Counsel on behalf
of writ petitioner and Mr.M.Ramesh, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
Government Advocate on behalf of all the three
respondents are before me.
2.This Court is informed that counter
affidavit has been filed by respondents and the
matter can be heard out.
3.This Court is also informed that the
subject matter of writ petition pertains to what
according to writ petitioner is a denomination
temple and the lis is regarding appointment of
trustees.
4.Learned State Counsel submits that the
benefit of denomination temple decree will not
enure in favour of the writ petitioner.
5.The aforementioned rival considerations
will be considered in the next listing. Re-notified.
6.List on 13.12.2021.'
2.Today, Mr.S.Manohar, learned Counsel on record for lone
writ petitioner and Mr.M.Ramesh, learned Government Advocate
on behalf of all the three respondents are before me.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
3.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents.
Pleadings are complete and the matter was taken up.
4.Subject matter of captioned writ petition is Arulmighu
Soundrapandia Vinayagar and Arulmigu Pulamadasamy Temple
situate in Ilayamuthur Village, Palayamkottai Taluk in Tirunelveli
District [hereinafter 'said temple' collectively for the sake of
convenience and clarity] and appointment of trustees to said
temple is the central theme of the captioned writ petition.
5.In the captioned writ petition, a notice dated 27.04.2015
bearing Reference No.e.f.vz;.15592/2013/m2> calling for
applications from eligible candidates for appointment as trustees of
said temple has been assailed. This writ petition was filed more
than half a decade ago. To be precise it was filed on 18.05.2015
and it has been pending for more than six [6] years now.
6.Be that as it may, at the time of inception of captioned writ
petition, an interim order has been made on 20.05.2015 and the
same reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
'Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned
Government Advocate, takes notice for the
respondents and seeks time to file counter.
2.This Court, on an earlier occasion, by
order dated 11.11.2013 allowed the writ petition
in W.P.(MD)No.16697 of 2013 setting aside the
order of appointment of a fit person on the
ground that the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.
691 of 1994 has declared the temple in question
as denominational in nature. Therefore, the
impugned order ex-facie ought not to have been
passed and hence the matter requires
consideration.
3.Post the matter after four weeks for
filing counter. In the mean while, there shall be
an order of interim stay.'
7.This interim order has now been operating for more than
six [6] years.
8.The crux and gravamen of the issue qua the lis has been
captured in the previous proceedings in the listing on 08.12.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
9.On a careful perusal of the case file, it comes to light that
there is a judgment dated 08.12.1996 made in O.S.No.691/1994 on
the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli. To be noted,
the decree has not been placed before me. Adverting to the
judgment in the suit filed by three individuals [appears to have
been filed in respective capacity] learned Counsel for writ
petitioner submits that vide this judgment there is a declaration
that said temple is a denomination temple. However, the judgment
[ f [Declaration] and the same being acceded to
talks about tpsk;gi
but it does not throw light on what exactly is the declaration.
Therefore, the declaratory judgment placed before me deprives me
of specificity and I therefore leave that question open.
10.Be that as it may, learned Counsel submits that
declaration is to the effect that it is a denomination temple. As
already alluded to supra, I leave that question open. Assuming ie.,
on a demurrer even if it is a denomination temple it would come
within the sweep and ambit of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of
1959)' {hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity}.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
Therefore the impugned notice dated 27.04.2015 does not suffer
from any infirmity. Other points that are being urged are in the
nature of eligibility and qualification of aspirants. All this will come
into play only when the notification is carried to its logical end
which means the captioned writ petition is clearly premature.
Therefore, I deem it appropriate to leave all questions open.
11.It is well open to the respondents to either continue the
impugned notice and carry it to its logical end or issue a fresh
notice as six [6] years have elapsed.
12.Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of as closed in the
aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned Miscellaneous Petition
is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
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 Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Inspector – East,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
M.SUNDAR., J.
MR
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD)No.8276 of 2015
13.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
