Madras High Court
R.Srinivasan vs The Commissioner on 9 November, 2021
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012 and
M.P. No. 1 of 2012
R.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Administration,
Villupuram.
3. The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Renukambal Temple,
Polur Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the
respondents from interfering with the Management and Control of the
petitioner's Temple pending the disposal of the Suit in O.S. No. 111 of
2021 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arani.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
For Petitioner : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
for Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Government Advocate for R1&R2
Mr.A.K.Sriram
for M/s.A.S.Kailasam&Associates R3
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing
the respondents from interfering with the Management and Control of the
petitioner's Temple, pending disposal of the Suit in O.S. No. 111 of 2021
on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arani.
2. That insofar as the third respondent / Temple is concerned, it is
the claim of the petitioner that, he is a Hereditary Trustee and in order to
establish that aspect, there has been a proceedings before the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, i.e., respondents, in
O.A. No. 8 of 2007, where an order was passed on 06.07.2011 rejecting
the claim of the petitioner. Felt aggrieved over with the said order, he
filed A.P. No. 61 of 2011 before the Appellate Authority Commissioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
where also the petitioner lost his appeal through the order of the
Commissioner dated 25.11.2011. As against the said orders concurrently
made against the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Suit under Section
70 (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1959 in O.S. No. 111 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Arani, Tiruvannamalai Distirct, where the petitioner inter alia sought for
a declaration declaring that the petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of the
Temple concerned.
3. However, during the pendency of the said Suit which was
instituted on 17.12.2011 by the petitioner, the petitioner since could not
get any interim order in view of the embargo put in under the statute, i.e.,
under Section 70(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, he has chosen to approach this Court by filing the
present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer seeking a prohibitory
mandamus restraining the official respondents from interfering with the
alleged possession of the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee to maintain
third respondent / Temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
4. Heard Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner who would submit that, though such concurrent orders were
passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority under
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, as
against which, the Suit was filed which was pending all these years, the
petitioner since being the Hereditary Trustee is functioning as a
Hereditary Trustee and that it need not be disturbed by the respondents.
Therefore, only in order to get a prohibitory order against the official
respondents, this Writ Petition has been filed, as such kind of prohibitory
orders by way of interim relief cannot be obtained by the petitioner in a
pending Suit in view of Section 70(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also has
submitted that, the suit has been tried and arguments were heard and it is
reserved for orders, therefore, at any time, the order may come in the said
Suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
6. However, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents as well as
Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent by
relying upon the counter affidavit separately filed by them would submit
that, subsequent to the orders passed by the original authority as well as
the appellate authority against the petitioner, in order to maintain the
Temple, a fit person has been appointed and who had taken charge on
30.11.2011 and all along, the fit person has been continuing the
administration of the third respondent / Temple. This factor has been
reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent also.
Therefore, the aforesaid factor cannot be controverted by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, he submits that, insofar as
the claim of the petitioner to continue as Hereditary Trustee is concerned,
as an interim measure, that relief can be granted by this Court. Therefore,
in the year 2012, this Writ Petition has been filed and all along, no orders
since has been passed and in the meanwhile, it was claimed by the
respondents that, fit person has been appointed in the year 2011 and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
are continuesly administering the Temple is concerned, this Writ Petition
can be disposed of by passing suitable orders.
7. I have heard the said submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before
this Court.
8. It is an admitted fact that, concurrently, the petitioner suffered
with orders passed by the original authority as well as the appellate
authority with regard to his claim as being the Hereditary Trustee of the
third respondent / Temple and as against those orders, he had filed
O.S. No. 111 of 2011 in the year 2011 itself and the said Suit all along
has been pending and now it is reserved for orders. However,
immediately, after the order passed in A.P. No. 61 of 2011 by the
appellate authority on 25.11.2011, fit person was appointed for the
temple on 30.11.2011, i.e., within five days from the date of order passed
in Appeal Petition and from that date onwards, the fit person had been in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
the affairs or in the administration of the third respondent / Temple and
that aspect cannot be disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, insofar as
administering the Temple for time being, the fit person already in the
helm of affairs who can continue. And it is needless to mention that, once
the Civil Court who reserved the orders in the Suit filed by the petitioner
passes a judgment and decree, the parties would abide by such orders and
decree to be passed. Therefore, at this juncture, the prayer sought for by
the petitioner cannot be considered and granted. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition fails and hence it deserves to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
09.11.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order: Yes / No
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
To
1. The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Administration,
Villupuram.
3. The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Renukambal Temple,
Polur Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji
W.P. No. 1088 of 2012
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2012
09.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
