Madras High Court

G.Prem Anand vs The Principal Secretary on 1 August, 2022

                                                                                C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 01.08.2022

                                                       CORAM :

                                      THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
                                              C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.19826 of 2021

                G.Prem Anand.
                                                                                     ... Appellant
                                                        Versus
                The Principal Secretary,
                Tourism, Culture and Endowments,
                Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
                                                                                   ... Respondent

                Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 53(5-A) of the Tamil
                Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, to set aside the
                impugned order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the respondent in G.O (Standing)
                No.238, Tourism, Culture and HR & CE Department and allow this appeal and
                consequently restore the status of the appellant as hereditary trustee of Sri
                Vengeeswarar Alagar Perumal and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam having its
                Office in the temple premises at Saidapet Road, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.


                                       For Appellant     : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
                                       For Respondent    : Mr.S.Yashwanth,
                                                           Additional Government Pleader
                                                           (HR & CE)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/10
                                                                                    C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021



                                                    JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed challenging the impugned

order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the respondent herein.

2. The brief facts which are essential for disposing of the above appeal are

as follows:

The appellant is the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Vengeeswarar Alagar

Perumal and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam, Vadapalani, Chennai. He

assumed charge on 26.01.1990, thereafter he had been recognised as Hereditary

Trustee. It is the case of the appellant that, after he assumed charge, not only

Kumbabishegam of the temple was conducted but also the income of the temple

had increased manifold. Meanwhile, the lands belonging to the temple were

acquired for the Metro Rail Project as well as for the expansion of construction

of flyover. These proceedings were also diligently challenged by the appellant

herein. While so, by a show cause notice dated 05.03.2012, the respondent

herein had framed four charges against the appellant herein which is set out

briefly below:

(i) Leaving out the properties belonging to the temple, from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

the property register and keeping away the old property register.

(ii) Leasing out the properties to 27 persons out of which for 10 persons no prior permission have been obtained.

(iii) Selling 12 plots in Survey No.37/1 of Kodambakkam Village without obtaining the permission thereby acting illegally.

(iv) Collecting donation in the name of Sri Pradosha Bakkthargal Sabha for the Kumbabishekam and renovation work without the authorization of the Department.

3. To the above charges, an explanation have been offered by the

appellant on 13.04.2012 in which the appellant would submit that as regards

the first charge, the necessary documents have been provided and as regards to

the second charge of inducting 10 tenants without getting permission of the

Department, the appellant would submit that no new tenant was inducted and it

is only legal heirs of the deceased tenants who have continued their tenancy

with whom a fresh lease has been entered into. The appellant has not cared to

verify the period of lease or whether the actual legal representatives of the

deceased tenants was occupying in the said premises. As regards fourth charge,

the appellant have stated that the approval, for conducting Kumbabishagam and

renovation work, which was to be undertaken by the Sri Pradosha Bakkthargal

Saba, was obtained from the Joint Commissioner who had passed the order

dated 18.06.2008.

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

C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

4. Meanwhile, it appears that the appellant had not answered a query

raised, with reference to certain matters of the appellant temple, under the Right

to Information Act. Since the information was not available with the appellant.

The aggrieved petitioner moved the State Information Commissioner, who had

summoned the appellant. However, the appellant herein had not appeared

before the State Information Commissioner and had submitted his leave of

absence. However, the State Information Commissioner had passed an order

recommending that the temple would fall within the purview of the Right to

Information Act and held that the temple, which is private institution, was also

amenable to scrutiny under the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that this

amounted to the lowering of the dignity of the concerned temple. Thereafter,

the respondent had framed two more charges and issued a fresh letter on

28.05.2013. The two additional charges were:

(i) The fifth charge was that the petitioner by not responding to the notices issued by the State Information Commissioner, on the ground that the Hereditary Trustee was not a Government Employee and that his presence should be dispensed with, amounts to disregarding the orders of the State Commissioner, which amounts to a flagrant violation of the duties caused upon

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

C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

him.

(ii) The second charge was also connected to the above charge.

6. Thereafter, the appellant had given their explanation to the show cause

notice under cover of their letter dated 06.06.2013. After receiving the said

letter, there was no further action on the side of respondent. However, on

07.11.2013, the appellant was once again slapped with the very same show

cause notice, wherein all the six charges were clubbed together. Once again a

detailed explanation has been offered by the appellant to the respondent vide

reply dated 16.11.2013, despite which the respondent had passed the impugned

order, in and by which, except for not accepting the explanation of the appellant

with reference to five charges, the appellant was removed from the Hereditary

Trustee. Challenging the same, the appellant had initially filed a writ petition,

which was rightly returned for presenting before the proper forum. Therefore,

this appeal has now been filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

8. The impugned order dated 12.10.2015, is a non speaking order which

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

C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

is clearly evident from the paragraph 3 of the said order, which is as follows:

"3/ jpU/$p/gpnuk; Mde;j;. guk;giu mw';fhtyh; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs;. Fw;w";rhl;lg;gl;lthpd;

                          jd;dpiy           tpsf;fk;         kw;Wk;     nky;tpsf;fk;          Mfpait
                          Mtz';fSld;                  murhy;             ftdkhf               ghprPyid
                          bra;ag;gl;lJ/            ghprPyidf;Fg;gpd;.           brd;id.         tlgHep
                          mUs;kpF           nt';fP!;tuh;          mHfh;            bgUkhs;           kw;Wk;
                          ehfhj;jk;kd;           jpUf;nfhapy;fspd;         guk;giu        mw';fhtyh;
                          jpU/$P/gpnuk;      Mde;j;          vd;gth;     kPJ       nkny     gj;jp      1-y;
                          Rkj;jg;gl;l        6      Fw;wr;rhl;Lfspy;;           3-tJ        Fw;wr;rhl;L
                          epU:gzkhftpy;iybad;Wk;.                  ,ju         5      Fw;wr;rhl;LfSk;
                          gpd;tUk;            fhuz';fshy;                 epU:gzkhfpa[s;sjhft[k;
                          KobtLf;fg;;gl;Ls;sJ/


                                  (i)     jpUf;nfhapypd;        brhj;Jg;           gjpntL     Mizah;
                          mYtyf               ep/K/1560/1966             ehs;           17/12/1966-d;go
                          m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;Ls;s              epiyapy;.     rl;lg;gphpt[       31-d;     fPH;
                          nrh;j;jy;       kw;Wk;     ePf;f';fs;        bra;J.       brhj;J     gjpntL
                          m';fPfhpf;f              guk;giu            mw';fhtyh;            eltof;if
                          vLf;fhky;.        nfhlk;ghf;fk;         rh;nt        vz;/112.     192 /1.     4/3

nghd;w jpUf;nfhapy; mirah nrhj;Jf;fis nrh;f;fhky; nkw;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s brhj;Jf;fis kiwg;gjw;fhf.

rl;;lg;gphpt[ 29-d; fPH; g[jpjhf brhj;Jg; gjpntl;oid jahh; bra;Js;sJ bjs;sj;bjspthf g[ydhfpwJ

(ii) ,yhfh mDkjpapd;wp. jd;dpr;irahf jpUf;nfhapYf;Fr; brhe;jkhd fl;ol';fspy; 10

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

C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

thlifjhuh;fSf;F thlif chpik bgah; khw;w';fs;

kw;Wk; 33 kid thlif ,d';fspd; thlif chpik bgah; khw;wk; bra;J guk;giu mw';fhtyh; KiwnfLfs;

                          g[hpe;Js;shh;/


                                  (iii)   ,e;J     rka      mwepiyaj;          Jiw      rl;lk;    1959
                          rl;lg;gphpt[     116(2)(x)-d;     fPH;   Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;s       tpjp    5A-
                          d;go             jpUf;nfhapy;              bgahpy;            jpUf;nfhapy;
                          rk;ge;jg;glhjth;fs;              (bjhif            kw;Wk;      fhzpf;if
                          bghUl;fs;)         tNy;          bra;tJ       Fw;wtpay;        eltof;if
                          vLf;fj;jf;fJ MFk;.


                                  (iv)        jpUf;nfhapYf;F                 eph;thf         guk;giu
                          mw';fhtynu              bghJj;jfty;           mYtyuhf             bray;gl
                          cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;sJ/              nkw;go      cj;jutpid         kjpf;fhky;
                          ,j;jpUf;nfhapy;           guk;giu          mw';fhtyh;          13/03/2013-y;
                          jkpH;ehL         khepy      jfty;          Mizaj;jpw;F            mDg;gpa
                          fojj;jpy;        jhd;     muR       CHpah;    my;y      vd;Wk;.        jfty;

Miza tprhuizf;F M$uhtjpypUe;J tpyf;F mspf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W bjhptpj;J ,Ug;gJ. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; hpl; kD cj;juita[k;. Mizahpd; Rw;wwpf;if cj;juita[k; cjhrPdg;gLj;jpa brayhFk;/

(v) jkpH;ehL jfty; Mizaj;jpy; 27/03/2013 md;W eilbgw;w tprhuizapy;. jpUf;nfhapy;

bghJj;jfty; mYtyuhd guk;giu mw';fhtyh;. Chpy;

                          ,y;iy           vd;W       M$uhfhky;               cs;sJ         jdf;Fhpa
                          flikapypUe;J             tpyfpa      brayhFk;/        mj;Jld;          jfty;
                          Miza             tprhuizapd;              nghJ       jfty;         Miza

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

                                                                               C.M.A.No.3442 of 2021

                          jiyikj;      jfty;    Mizah;     kw;Wk;   ,ju    Mizah;fs;
                          jpUf;nfhapy;      rhh;ghf      nfl;fg;gLk;      tpdhf;fSf;F
                          brd;id Mizah; mYtyf bghJ jfty; mYtyuhd

jiyikapl ,iz Mizah; mth;fSf;Fk;. muR rhh;g[r; brayhsh; /bghJ jfty; mYtyh; mwepiya';fs; kw;Wk; bra;jpj;Jiw mth;fSf;Fk;. brd;id ,iz Miza mYtyf nkyhsh;/bghJ jfty; mYtyh; mth;fSf;Fk; gjpy; mspf;f ntz;oa fl;lhaj;ij Vw;gLj;jp ,f;fl;lhd NH;epiyf;F guk;giu mw';fhtyh; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;/"

9. A mere perusal of the above order would show the total non-

application of mind on the part of the Authority namely the respondent herein.

The respondent has not adverted to the explanation offered by the appellant

herein and the respondent has simply reproduced the five charges and stating

that they stand proved. There is no reasoned order but mere a one-line order.

10. Therefore, the above appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

12.10.2015 passed by the respondent herein is set aside. The matter is remitted

back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the show cause notice and the

explanation offered therein. The respondent shall conduct an enquiry where the

appellant can participate to substantiate the explanations given by him to the

earlier show cause notice as well as the show cause notice which has given rise

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