Madras High Court
S.P.Mariappan vs The Commissioner on 6 April, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) Nos.6465 and 6466 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 2, 3 and 3 of 2013
1.S.P.Mariappan
2.S.Senthilkumar
... Petitioners in both W.Ps.,
/vs./
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Tuticorin.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Tuticorin.
... Respondents in both W.Ps.,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER in W.P.(MD) No.6465 of 2013: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 1312/2013-2/A3 dated 15.03.2013 on the file of 3rd
respondent with regard to Perumal Temple situated at Tharuvaikulam Village,
Otapidaram Taluk, Tuticorin District and quash the same as illegal,
unconstitutional, and ultra vires and for consequential reliefs.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD) No.6466 of 2013: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1312/2013-1/A3 dated 15.03.2013 on the file of 3rd
respondent with regard to Pathrakaliamman Temple situated at Tharuvaikulam
Village, Otapidaram Taluk, Tuticorin District and quash the same as illegal,
unconstitutional, and ultra vires and for consequential reliefs.
For Petitioners
in both W.Ps., : M/s.P.Manimegalai for
Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents
in both W.Ps., : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
By this common order both the writ petitions are disposed of.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned
order dated 15.03.2013 of the 3rd respondent in respect of two temples called
Perumal Temple and the Pathrakaliamman Temple situated at Tharuvaikulam
Village, Otapidaram Taluk, Tuticorin District.
3.By the impugned order, the 3rd respondent has appointed a Fit Person
under Section 49(1) of the HR & CE Act, 1959. The only reason stated in the
impugned notice is that the Fit Person has been appointed for better
administration of the aforesaid temple. The law and the subject has been settled
by this Court in paragraph No.12 and 13 of the judgment of this Court in the case
of P.R.Thirupathy and others Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai and
another reported in 2015 Writ L.R.479, which reads as under:-
“12.Further, the order appointing a fit person should be a speaking
order and disclose reasons as to why the authority namely, Assistant
Commissioner, was of the opinion that the affairs of the temple were not
conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there was a need
for immediate appointment of a fit person. In the impugned order, there is a
reference to a report of the Inspector, H.R.&C.E., Bhavani, dated
24.06.2013. The contents of the report have not been referred to in the
impugned order nor does the impugned order state that the report was the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
basis for appointment of the fit person. It may not be necessary for the
Assistant Commissioner to pass an elaborate order, but the order should
speak for itself and give reasons as to why in the opinion of the Assistant
Commissioner, the power under Section 49(1) of the Act was exercisable. In
the absence of reasons for appointment of the fit person, the impugned order
has to be necessarily held to be a non-speaking order and therefore, an
order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
13. It may be true that the petitioner had participated in the opening
of the hundial along with the fit person and had knowledge of his
appointment. In my view that by itself will not validate the impugned order
nor the inherent defects therein would stand cure.”
4.Since the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner before proceeding to appoint the Fit Person and since
the impugned order is bereft of any details giving a reason for better
administration of the temple, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and remit
the case back to the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders. It is needless to state that
before passing such orders, the petitioner shall also be heard. The impugned
order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as a show cause notice. Liberty is
given to the respondents to issue corrigendum to the said notice, within a period
of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
also file a reply to the same within a period of 30 days thereafter. The 3rd
respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of such reply from the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed
within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 06.04.2022
Internet : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Tuticorin.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Tuticorin.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) Nos.6465 and 6466 of 2013
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
