Madras High Court
P.Pitchaimuthu vs The Commissioner on 26 November, 2021
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P(MD)No.11252 of 2015
P.Pitchaimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Dindigul.
4.Panchatcharam
5.Subramani
6.Dhanalakshmi
7.Senguthan ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents 1 to 3
to appoint a Thakkar / Executive Officer or a Committee of persons for the
purpose of the management of Arulmighu Manickavalli Amman, Arulmighu
Maragathavalliamman and Arulmighu Mahalingeswarar Temples in
Thavasimadai Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District and the
properties endowed in favour of the deities and for further direction to take
suitable action against the fourth respondent for his misappropriation and
mismanagement.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.R.Aravindhan for R4
No Appearance for R5 to R7
ORDER
'Arulmighu Manickavalli Amman, Arulmighu Maragathavalliamman
and Arulmighu Mahalingeswarar Temples' [hereinafter collectively 'said
temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is the fulcrum of the
captioned writ petition and administration of said temple is the central
theme of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
2. Prayer in the captioned writ petition is a simple mandamus qua
respondents 1 to 3 to appoint a Thakkar / Executive Officer or a Committee
of persons for the purpose of management of said temple. This prayer is
predicated and posited on the allegation that the fourth respondent who is
Poosari of the said temple has inter alia alienated the lands / assets of said
temple besides several other acts of mismanagement. It is also submitted
that respondents 5 to 7 [private respondents] are alienees of temple lands
which are alleged to have been alienated by the fourth respondent.
3. Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for writ petitioner,
Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to
3 and Mr.R.Aravindan, learned counsel for fourth respondent are before this
Court. Respondents 5 to 7 have been duly served and their names together
with full addresses as in the cause title have been shown in the cause list but
none appears. This Court is informed that no counsel has entered
appearance on behalf of respondents 5 to 7.
4. A careful perusal of the case file placed before this Court, brings to
light that the nucleus of the central theme is proceedings dated 11.11.2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
bearing reference e.f.vz;.4826/2014/M1 being proceedings made by the
third respondent and the same reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
5. To be noted, a perusal of the scanned reproduction supra brings to
light that the trusteeship of the said temple has been declared to be
hereditary vide O.A.No.129/1944 as it is evident from RTI reply to one of
the queries in the scanned reproduction supra. Therefore, the said temple
cannot but be a public temple.
6. As the fourth respondent has not filed counter affidavit, I deem it
appropriate to not to express any opinion or view on the allegations that
have been made. It is necessary that the interest of said temple is protected
as this Court is parens patriae qua idol, which is in the status of a minor
and custodia legis qua the properties of a pubic temple. This principle has
been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the oft quoted judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A.Gopalakrishnan's case
[A.A.Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.,] reported in
(2007) 7 SCC 482, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the
duty of this Court to protect temple properties.
7. In this view of the matter, as the prayer is essentially for
appointment of Executive Officer / Fit person / Committee, I deem it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the third respondent
(jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, TN
HR & CE Department, Dindigul), who statutorily vested with powers to
appoint Fit person qua said temple under 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 convenience and
clarity) at the earliest. To be noted, this Court is informed by learned State
Counsel based on the records that the said temple is a non-listed temple and
therefore, the directive is to the third respondent now. This would ensure
that administration of said temple is taken charge and all the allegations are
looked into. As already alluded to supra, I have not expressed any view or
opinion on the allegations and I have left open the allegations but the
primary concern is to ensure that the properties of said temple are
safeguarded and the management and administration is streamlined.
8. This Court is informed that the fourth respondent is functioning as
a Poosari of said temple. This submission is recorded. The third respondent
shall appoint a Fit person as expeditiously as the business of the third
respondent would permit and in any event within four weeks from today i.e.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
on or before 24.12.2021. It is also made clear that further proceedings post
appointment of Fit person i,e., proceedings such as appointment of
Executive officer, Trustee etc., can proceed without being fettered or stifled
by this order.
9. Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the above directive.
There shall be no order as to costs.
vsm 26.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 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,
H.R & C.E. Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD) No.11252 of 2015
M.SUNDAR, J.
vsm
W.P(MD)No.11252 of 2015
26.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
