Madras High Court
Nataraja Gurukkal vs The Commissioner on 29 November, 2021
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.1700 of 2013 and
C.M.P. No.7529 of 2018
Nataraja Gurukkal .. Appellant
v.
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Administrative Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. Hereditary Trustee,
Arulmighu Suyambulinga Swami Temple,
Uvari, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 12.02.2013 made in W.P.No.20708 of 2005 on the file of this
Court.
Page 1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr. A. Muthukumar
For Respondents : Mr. S. Arumugam,
Govt. Advocate – R1
Mr. K. Sridhar - R2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.20708 of 2005, the Writ
Petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.
2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent
dated 07.08.2004, to quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd
respondent to reinstate the petitioner as archaga in the Arulmigu
Suyambulinga Swami Temple, Uvari, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli
District.
3.1 It is the case of the appellant that he was working along with
22 other archagas for about 25 years, as one of the Gurukkal in the
Page 2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
temple managed by the 2nd respondent/hereditary trustee. Since the
appellant fell ill, on 20.04.1989, he deputed, on his own, his brother-in-
law, viz., Chockalingam to perform the poojas in the temple. The
arrangements made by the appellant was objected to by the previous
trustee, viz., P.T.Thangasamy Rajan, who was the hereditary trustee. The
appellant was issued with show cause notice dated 26.09.1989 calling
upon him to submit his explanation with regard to the arrangements
made by him in deputing his brother-in-law to perform the poojas in the
temple. The hereditary trustee, viz., P.T.Thangasamy Rajan, issued
another show cause notice dated 01.11.1989 alleging that, without
getting any prior permission from the trustees, he permitted his brother-
in-law who does not have any qualification to perform pooja service in
the temple and who do not have any qualification to perform pooja.
The appellant sent a reply dated 12.11.1989, explaining the reason for
permitting his brother-in-law to perform pooja in the temple. Pursuant
to the reply sent by the appellant, disciplinary action was initiated
against him by the hereditary trustee and he was removed from service.
Page 3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
3.2 Challenging the order passed by the hereditary trustee, the
appellant filed an appeal in A.P. No.1 of 1990 before the Deputy
Commissioner, HR & CE Department and the said authority also
dismissed the appeal by order dated 10.12.1990.
3.3. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred a revision in
R.P.No. 10 of 1991 before the the 1st respondent and the said authority
set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the
matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry.
Subsequently, the hereditary trustee, P.T.Thangasamy Rajan, had passed
away, hence, the HR & CE Department appointed a fit person in the
place of hereditary trustee.
3.4 On remand, the Deputy Commissioner, took up the appeal in
A.P. No. 3 of 1992, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report
stating that the appellant had already been reinstated in service. In view
of such reinstatement, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated
24.05.1993, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Subsequently, the
Page 4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
2nd respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.10008 of 1995 before
this Court challenging the appointment of a fit person and another Writ
Petition in W.P. No.4162 of 1994, questioning the order of the Deputy
Commissioner passed in A.P. No.3 of 1992, allowing the appeal filed by
the appellant. This Court, set aside the appointment of fit person and
also set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in A.P. No.3
of 1929 and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for
fresh disposal.
3.5 Aggrieved over the order passed in W.P. No.4162 of 1994,
the appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No. 2198 of 2001 and the
Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.11.2001, dismissed the
appeal.
3.6 The Joint Commissioner HR & CE Department passed an
order in A.P. No. 2 of 2001 confirming the earlier order of removal of the
appellant from the service of archaga. Challenging the same, a revision
was filed in R.P. No.44 of 2002 before the 1st respondent and the
Page 5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
revisional authority dismissed the appellant's revision. Challenging the
order passed by the 1st respondent, the appellant has filed the Writ
Petition.
4. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the case of
both sides, by order dated 12.02.2013 dismissed the Writ Petition
holding that after the abolition of hereditary archagars, no archaga can
claim as hereditary archagars in any temple under the control of HR &
CE Administration after 1971. Further, the learned Single Judge held
that the writ petitioner being a non- hereditary archaga, should have got
appointment order from the hereditary trustee by producing all relevant
certificates, but, without doing so, he cannot question the right of the
hereditary trustee in calling for the certificates of the writ petitioner's
proficiency to perform poojas in the temple even in the middle of the
writ petitioner's service. The learned Single Judge has also observed that
till date the writ petitioner has not produced any certificate of
qualification and it goes without saying that he is disqualified from
working as archaga in the temple. Challenging the order passed by the
Page 6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.
5. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-writ petitioner submitted that the appellant being a hereditary
archaga, the provision of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964 has no
application. Further, the learned counsel submitted that Rule 5 shall
apply only to non-hereditary archagar and not to the hereditary archaga.
6. But, on a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ
Petition, it is clear that the appellant has not uttered a single word to the
effect that he is a hereditary archaga. In the absence of any specific
averment stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to the said
effect, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the appellant is a hereditary archaga cannot be accepted.
7. Mr. K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
respondent submitted that the rights of hereditary succession of the
Page 7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
office of archaga has been abolished by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1971,
which came into force on 08.01.1971. Further, the learned counsel
submitted that the appellant having been born in the year 1953, his
service came to an end on completion of the age of 60 years as
per Rule 5.
8. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2000 (IV) CTC 7
[ N.Kumaraswamy Gurukkal v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments, Nungambakkam, Madras and another]
relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in
W.A.No. 424 of 1999, dated 11.3.1999, came to the conclusion that after
the introduction of Act 2 of 1971 on 08.01.1971, the rights of hereditary
succession of the office of archaga has been abolished and the said
Judgment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No. 424 of 1999, dated 11.3.1999, squarely applies to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
Page 8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
10. In view of Act 2 of 1971 , the claim of the appellant was
rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. W do not find any ground
to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ
Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
29.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Rj
To
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Administrative Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. Hereditary Trustee,
Arulmighu Suyambulinga Swami Temple,
Uvari, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
Page 9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1700 of 2013and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Rj
W.A.No.1700 of 2013 and
C.M.P. No.7529 of 2018
29.11.2021
Page 10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
