Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

E.P.Parthasarathy vs The Secretary To Government
2022 Latest Caselaw 7904 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7904 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2022

Madras High Court
E.P.Parthasarathy vs The Secretary To Government on 18 April, 2022
                                                                       W.P.No.40398 of 2015

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 18.04.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                          Writ Petition No.40398 of 2015



                  E.P.Parthasarathy                                           .. Petitioner

                                                            Vs.


                  1.The Secretary to Government
                  Tamil Development, Religious Endowments
                   and Information Department
                  Fort. St. George
                  Chennai-600 009.

                  2.The Commissioner
                  Hindu Religious and Charitable
                   Endowments Department
                  Mahatma Gandhi Road
                  Nungambakkam
                  Chennai-600 034.

                  3.The Board of Trustees of
                   Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple
                  Perumal Koil street
                  Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.                               .. Respondents



                  1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               W.P.No.40398 of 2015

                  Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

                  praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2

                  to audit the books of accounts of Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal

                  Temple at Saidapet, Chennai-600 015, from the year 1986 onwards to till date

                  within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
                                   For R1 and R2       : Mr.S.Yashwanth
                                                       Additional Government Pleader (HR and CE)
                                   For R3              : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar


                                                        ORDER

Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to audit

the books of accounts of Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple at

Saidapet, Chennai-600 015, from the year 1986 onwards to till date, within a

stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

2.According to the petitioner, Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha

Perumal Temple, Saidapet, Chennai, is a denominational temple of Balija

Chetty community. The petitioner is not interested in becoming Trustee, but

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

his interest is only in the welfare of the temple. In suit O.S.No.1134 of 1988

on the file of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, a decree has been

passed declaring that Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple as

denominational temple and also held that H.R. and C.E. Department shall

have right to collect audit fees and contribution fees in respect of the temple.

In spite of such decree, the Board of Trustees of the temple have not paid

audit fees and contribution fees to the 2nd respondent and no audit is

conducted from the year 1986. The petitioner in the affidavit made various

allegations against one Balakrishnan, earlier Managing Trustee of 3 rd

respondent temple and stated about arrest of Balakrishnan for

mismanagement of temple funds. In view of the above, the petitioner sent

representation dated 08.07.2015 to the respondents 1 and 2 pointing out

about non payment of audit fees and contribution fees and also stated that no

audit was conducted from the year 1986. Since no action has been taken on

the said representation, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ

Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action against the temple authorities

and prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to audit books of

account of Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple, from the year

1986 onwards till date within the time fixed by this Court.

4.On behalf of the 3rd respondent, one S.Manohar claiming to be

Managing Trustee of the 3rd respondent temple has filed counter affidavit. In

the counter affidavit, the said Manohar has stated about the criminal case

registered against the said Balakrishnan, erstwhile Managing Trustee. After

his resignation, the petitioner was co-opted as a Trustee and the petitioner

suppressed this fact. The said Manohar, apart from mentioning irregularities

and mismanagement committed by the said Balakrishnan, in the counter

affidavit has also stated that the petitioner has purchased the properties of the

temple from the lessee in the name of his wife Indhumathi and committed

land grabbing. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his

wife Indhumathi. Petitioner's wife approached the 3rd respondent and

promised to settle the issue by excluding the temple land from the sale deed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

In view of the settlement, the criminal case registered against the petitioner

and his wife was quashed by this Court.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent referring to the

averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that after S.Manohar

became Managing Trustee, the Trustees have taken steps for audit of accounts

of the temple and have submitted the books of account in the format as per

the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent

further submitted that without conducting any enquiry, the 2 nd respondent

removed all the Trustees. Challenging the order of the 2 nd respondent,

S.Manohar Chettiar, Managing Trustee, filed Writ Petition No.9087 of 2020.

This Court by the order dated 12.08.2020 directed the Board of Trustees to

pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards arrears of annual contribution and audit

fees within a period of four weeks from the said date. In the Writ Appeal filed

by S.Manohar Chettiar in W.A.No.758 of 2020, the First Bench of this Court,

by judgment dated 25.09.2020, reduced the said amount to Rs.3,00,000/-. As

per the judgment of this Court dated 25.09.2020 made in W.A.No.738 of

2020, 3rd respondent also deposited the said amount towards audit and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

contribution fees. The 3rd respondent has taken all the efforts to get the

accounts of the temple audited.

5(i).The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further

submitted that in C.S.No.358 of 2020 filed for framing scheme, this Court by

order dated 22.07.2021 made in A.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2020 in

C.S.No.358 of 2020 appointed Mr.P.B.Ramanujam, the learned Senior

Advocate as Advocate Commissioner-cum-Interim Administrator to

administer the temple. All the documents kept in the office room of the temple

was destroyed during December 2015 due to heavy flood. The temple was

completely water logged for four days and all the vital documents were

damaged. The Board of Trustees submitted all the documents to the 2nd

respondent for the financial years 2016 - 2020 and also paid a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards audit and contribution fees as per the judgment of the

First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.758 of 2020. The accounts for the

financial year July 2021 to June 2022 will be submitted during second week

of July 2022 and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 submitted that as per the judgment of First Bench of this

Court, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid. After going through the record,

if any additional amount is required as per the Act, the 2nd respondent will

claim the same and audit the accounts. The documents will be audited within

the time fixed by this Court and prayed for passing suitable orders.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the

learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2

and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the

entire materials on record.

8.From the above materials, it is seen that various allegations of

irregularities and misappropriation of funds are made against erstwhile

Managing Trustee Balakrishnan as well as against the petitioner and his wife.

Criminal cases have been filed and registered against the erstwhile Managing

Trustee Balakrishnan as well as the petitioner and his wife. These allegations

are not relevant for the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

S.Manohar, the then Managing Trustee and the present Managing Trustee

K.R.Prabhakar, filed affidavits to the effect that books of accounts of the

temple from 2016 till 2020 were submitted to the Department in the required

format and also audit and contribution fees have been paid as per the

judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.758 of 2020. The said S.Manohar,

the then Managing Trustee as well as K.R.Prabhakar, the present Managing

Trustee have also stated that during flood in December 2015, temple was

water logged for four days and all the vital documents got damaged. The 3rd

respondent has given complaint to the concerned Police Station. Now, this

Court, in suit C.S.No.358 of 2020 filed for framing scheme, appointed a

Senior Advocate as Advocate Commissioner-cum-Interim Administrator and

management of the temple is with the said Advocate Commissioner-cum-

Interim Administrator. The Advocate Commissioner-cum-Interim

Administrator is an Officer of the Board and he is in management of the

temple. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent that accounts from the year 2016 - 2020 have been already

submitted before the 2nd respondent and amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has been

paid as per the judgment of First Bench in W.A.No.758 of 2020, is not denied

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner or the learned Additional

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. After going

through the records, if any additional amount is required as per the Act, the

2nd respondent will claim the said additional amount and audit the accounts.

In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to take into

consideration the documents filed by the petitioner and proceed further as

expeditiously as possible.

9.With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

18.04.2022

Index : Yes / No kj

To

1.The Secretary to Government Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information Department Fort. St. George Chennai-600 009.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.40398 of 2015

V.M.VELUMANI, J.,

kj

2.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034.

3.The Board of Trustees of Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimha Perumal Temple Perumal Koil street Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

W.P.No.40398 of 2015

18.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter