Madras High Court
R.Thulasingam vs The Commissioner on 25 April, 2022
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
Writ Petition No.13947 of 2019
R.Thulasingam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
HR and CE Board
Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner
HR and CE Board
Sathuvachari
Vellore – 9.
3.The Executive Officer
Aulmighu Azheeyavara Vinayagar Thirukoil
and other Temples Devasthanam
Kuthambakkam
Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
relieve the 3rd respondent from administration of the denomination temple in
the light of the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.10620 of 2013
Dr.Subramanian versus State of Tamil Nadu and others.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasudan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.A.K.Sriram
ORDER
Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the 1st respondent to relieve the
3rd respondent from administration of the denominational temple in the light
of the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.10620 of 2013 in
[Dr.Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others].
2. Arulmighu Azheeyavara Vinayagar Thirukoil, Thirupurantheeswarar
Thirukoil, Kaliyugaraya Perumal Thirukoil, Thurayathamman Thirukoil, Sri
Mari Ellamman Thirukoil, Sri Pidari Thuraiyathamman and Sri Dharmaraja
Thirukoil are denominational temples of Udayar Thuluva Vellalar community.
The people belonging to the said community alone have right to be the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
trustees and manage the temples. This has been affirmed in O.S.No.427 of
1886, A.S.No.267 of 1888 and Second Appeal No.687 of 1889. Sanjeevi
Mudaliyar, grand father of petitioner was the Hereditary Trustee of the said
temples and he was managing the temples. The respondents have no right to
interfere with the administration of the temples. The petitioner's grand father
and two others filed O.S.No.216 of 1973 before the District Munsif Court,
Poonamallee, for declaration that the temples of Sri Azheeyavara Vinayagar,
Sri Thirupurantheeswarar, Sri Kaliyugaraya Perumal, Sri Mari Ellamman, Sri
Pidari Thurayathamman and Sri Dharmaraja at Kuthambakkam village are
denominational institutions of the petitioner's community, the said temples
are entitled to be managed only by the members of their community and their
descendants and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from
either directly or through his subordinates the Assistant Commissioner, H.R.
and C.E., Kancheepuram, interfering with the management of the said
temples by the members of the petitioner's community by appointing any
strangers thereto. The said suit was decreed on 20.08.1981. As per the said
decree, the respondents have no right to appoint any trustees from other
community except the petitioner's community. Similarly, the respondents have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
no right to interfere with the administration of the temples. Sanjeevi
Mudaliyar, grand father of the petitioner died on 19.06.1980. After the death
of Sanjeevi Mudaliyar and due to old age of his wife viz., Krishnaveni, grand
mother of the petitioner, the petitioner is looking after the affairs of the
temples on behalf of his grand mother.
2(i). While so, certain vested interested persons claiming to be the
trustees leased out the properties of the temples and utilised the rental amount
for their personal use. In such circumstances, the petitioner made a
representation to the 1st respondent to invoke his power under Section 45 of
the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to
as the H.R. and C.E. Act) and appoint Executive Officer as temporary
measure. According to the petitioner, considering his request, the 1st
respondent by the proceedings dated 13.02.2010 appointed a Fit person, the
3rd respondent for managing the temple. The 3rd respondent, in collusion with
land grabbers is acting against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has come
out with the present Writ Petition for the relief sought for above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at no
point of time, the petitioner's community waived their right to be in the
management of the temples. The 3rd respondent was appointed only on
temporary measure and he cannot continue as Executive Officer permanently
and manage the temple and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition in the light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75
[Dr.Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others].
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1
and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent separately
submitted that Department had appointed Trustee only from and out of
Udayar Thuluva Vellalar community. The respondents have not violated the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75
[Dr.Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others] and the
decree passed in the suit O.S.No.216 of 1973. Originally, the respondents
appointed a Fit Person by the proceedings dated 13.02.2010, the same was
challenged in Writ Petition No.4297 of 2010. While the said Writ Petition
was pending, the respondents appointed Trustee to the temple. In view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
same, the said Writ Petition was dismissed. Subsequently, in order to
safeguard the temple, the then persons in the management of the temple
submitted application on 10.08.2010 before the 2nd respondent with a request
to appoint an Executive Officer to assist them in the administration of the
temple. Considering the then persons in the management, 1st respondent by
the proceedings dated 05.12.2010 appointed 3rd respondent as an Executive
Officer under Section 45(1) of the H.R. and C.E. Act. The 3 rd
respondent/Executive Officer was appointed to safe guard the property of the
temple. The 3rd respondent/Executive Officer is functioning with effect from
27.12.2010 along with Non-Hereditary Trustees, who are appointed for the
temple as per the judgment passed in O.S.No.216 of 1973 by the District
Munsif Court, Poonamallee. The 3rd respondent was appointed under Section
45(1) of the H.R. and C.E. Act, the said appointment was not challenged by
the petitioner or any other persons belonging to their community. When
appointment of Executive officer is not challenged, the petitioner is not
entitled to maintain the relief now sought for in the present Writ Petition.
4(i). The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further
submitted that as per the judgment made in O.S.No.216 of 1973, three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
trustees are appointed from Udayar Thuluva Vellalar community and they are
managing the religious activities. The 3rd respondent/Executive Officer
appointed by the H.R. and C.E. Department is regulating the secular activities
without interfering with the religious activities and relied on paragraph 33 of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (5) SCC 75 cited
supra.
4(ii). The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further
submitted that in pursuant to the judgment reported in 2014 (5) SCC 75 cited
supra, the State Government has prescribed Rules and the same have been
published in Part III Section 1(a) of the Tamil Nadu Gazette Extraordinary
dated 06.11.2015 [G.O.(Ms)No.260, TC & RE (RE-4-2) Department]. In view
of the same, the appointment prior to the Rules will be ratified and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the entire
materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
6.The claim of the petitioner is that Arulmighu Azheeyavara Vinayagar
Thirukoil, Thirupurantheeswarar Thirukoil, Kaliyugaraya Perumal Thirukoil,
Thurayathamman Thirukoil, Sri Mari Ellamman Thirukoil, Sri Pidari
Thuraiyathamman and Sri Dharmaraja Thirukoil are denominational temples
of Udayar Thuluva Vellalar community and the persons belonging to the said
community alone are entitled to manage the temple and the same is not
disputed by the respondents. Similarly, the contention of the respondents that
Non-Hereditary Trustees were appointed only among the said community is
not denied by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that some vested interest
persons leased out the property of the temples and utilised the rental income
for their personal use. In such circumstances, the petitioner and their
community people requested the 1st respondent to appoint an Executive
Officer to assist the Trustees in the administration of the temple. From the
averments made in the affidavit, it is seen that the 1 st respondent considering
the request of the petitioner and their community people, appointed 3rd
respondent as Executive Officer as per Section 45(1) of the H.R. and C.E.
Act. There is nothing on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner
that Executive Officer was appointed as a temporary measure. From the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
dated 05.12.2010 appointing Executive Officer, it is seen that Executive
Officer is appointed to safe guard the properties of the temple and assist the
Trustees. So long as said order of the 1st respondent is in force, the petitioner
is not entitled to the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition. The
contention of the respondents that Executive Officer was appointed at the
request of the Trustees is not denied by the petitioner. Appointment of
Executive Officer is not challenged by the petitioner. The said appointment is
in force till today. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for the
relief now sought for in the present Writ Petition.
7.For the above reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
25.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13947 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
kj
To
1.The Commissioner
HR and CE Board
Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner
HR and CE Board
Sathuvachari
Vellore – 9.
3.The Executive Officer
Aulmighu Azheeyavara Vinayagar Thirukoil
and other Temples Devasthanam
Kuthambakkam
Tirunelveli District. W.P.No.13947 of 2019
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
