Madras High Court
'Pazham Nee' Annadhana ... vs The Joint Commissioner on 5 April, 2022
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.8014 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.6320 of 2019
'Pazham Nee' Annadhana Arakkattalai,
No.150, Kottampatti Main Road,
Natham,
Dindigul District,
Through its Trustee and Secretary,
G.Sugiraman .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
B-1, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai – 16.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Dindigul District.
3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Thandayuthapaniswamy Thirukoil,
Palani,
Dindigul District – 624 601.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
5.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Melur,
At Arulmighu Kailasanathar Koil, Melur,
Madurai District.
6.P.N.Murugesan .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order in
Na.Ka.No.1787/2018-1/C1, dated 30.11.2018, issued by the third respondent
and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.5894/2018-2/A3, dated
03.12.2018, on the file of the fourth respondent and consequential notice in
Na.Ka.No.250/2018, dated 12.03.2019, on the file of the fifth respondent and
quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R6 : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated
30.11.2018 of the third respondent - Joint Commissioner, and the impugned
notice dated 03.12.2018 of the fourth respondent – Assistant Commissioner
and the impugned notice, dated 12.03.2019, of the fifth respondent - Inspector.
These proceedings have emanated pursuant to the complaints of the sixth
respondent, a private party, which are said to have been given on 06.10.2018,
09.11.2018 and 10.11.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the H.R. & C.E.
Department has no jurisdiction to summon or call upon the petitioner to come
for an enquiry, as the petitioner is a charitable Trust and not a religious
institution. It is submitted that there is only an endowment for certain
activities and that many of the activities are secular in nature without any
discrimination in caste or creed. One of the objects of the Trust is to give
Annadhanam during Thai Poosam and water during summer to everybody. It
is submitted that it was started by 11 persons belonging to a particular
community and at the time of starting of the Trust, there was no property
owned by the petitioner Trust. It is further submitted that subsequently, about
31 Ares of land [approximately 77 cents of land] has been purchased by the
petitioner Trust. It is further submitted that as per the Trust Deed, any
movable or immovable asset will be purchased only in the name of the Trust
and the Trust will have the authority to administer the property.
3.It is submitted that the sixth respondent is no way connected with the
petitioner Trust and has initiated proceedings on account of personal enmity
with the founding Trustees of the petitioner Trust. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner Trust is outside the purview of the H.R. &
C.E. Department and therefore, the impugned communications of the fifth
respondent to enquire and give a report are liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
4.In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following judgments:-
(i) Shanmugha Perayyar vs. State of Madras, Rep. by the Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. of Madras [AIR 1965 Madras 416]
(ii) Gomathi Ammal (died) and others vs. Madasamy and others [1985
(1) MLJ 360]
(iii) R.Murali and others vs. Kanyaka P.Devasthanam and Charities and
others [2005 (6) SCC 166]
(iv) S.Angamuthu Pillai and others vs. S.Govindarajoo Mudaliar (since
deceased) and others [2008 (2) MLJ 980]
(v) Carona Ltd. vs. M/s.Parvathy Swaminathan and sons [2007 (8) SCC
559]
5.Opposing the prayer, the learned Special Government Pleader for the
official respondents submits that there is no final determination as per the
impugned communication and the Trustees of the petitioner have been merely
asked to come and give a report. It is submitted that the writ petition is
premature and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
6.The learned counsel for the private respondent reiterates the above
submissions and submits that there is a large scale mismanagement and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
therefore, the official respondents are duty bound to interfere and take
appropriate steps under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E.
Act''].
7.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
8.Prima facie, on a reading of the Trust Deed, indicates that the
petitioner may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the
provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act. If the sixth respondent wants the petitioner
Trust to be brought within the purview of the H.R. & C.E. Act, the sixth
respondent is not without remedy. The sixth respondent can file appropriate
application before the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under
Section 63 of the H.R. & C.E. Act and thereafter, appropriate steps can be
taken for taking over the petitioner Trust.
9.In the above said proceedings, the issue as to whether the petitioner is
a religious endowment or endowment within the meaning of Section 6(17) of
the H.R. & C.E. Act, can also be decided. Under these circumstances, I am
inclined to allow this Writ Petition while preserving the liberty to the sixth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
respondent or any person, who is competent to approach the Joint
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under Section 63 of the H.R. & C.E.
Act.
10.Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 30.11.2018 of the
third respondent and the impugned notice dated 03.12.2018 of the fourth
respondent and the impugned notice, dated 12.03.2019, of the fifth respondent
are set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
smn2
To
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
B-1, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai – 16.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Dindigul District.
3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Thandayuthapaniswamy Thirukoil,
Palani,
Dindigul District – 624 601.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Dindigul.
5.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Melur,
At Arulmighu Kailasanathar Kovil, Melur,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP (MD) No. 8014 of 2019
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
WP (MD) No.8014 of 2019
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
