Madras High Court
K.Muniappan vs The Commissioner on 8 August, 2022
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
K.Muniappan ....Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Adigal Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Sengundar Kalyana Mandapam,
Pennagaram Road, Kumarasamipettai,
Dharmapuri ..Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the
records of the 1st respondent relating to his proceedings bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
Ni.Mu.No. 2554/2015/E4 dated 27.03.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vineet Subramani
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The subject matter of challenge in the present writ
petition pertains to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 27.03.2015, wherein the 2nd respondent has
informed the petitioner that a fit person will be appointed to
manage the administration and affairs of the temple.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner
belongs to a minority community in the concerned village and his
ancestors were administering and maintaining a temple called as
Murugan and Mariamman temple. This temple required
renovation work and hence, the petitioner took steps to renovate
the temple. This was prevented by a majority community and it
was moving towards a law and order problem. The petitioner left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
with no other option, filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2011 before the
District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, seeking for the relief of
permanent injunction restraining the persons belonging to the
majority community from interfering with the renovation work
that was undertaken by the petitioner. The persons belonging to
the majority community were made as parties in their
representative capacity. The suit was contested and the Trial
Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and
after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held
that there was overwhelming evidence to show that the temple
and the properties belonged to the petitioner and his family and
the temple had been maintained by them for a very long period
of time. The Trial Court also found that the temple had been
administered by the family of the petitioner from the year 1910
onwards when the property was purchased through a registered
sale deed dated 29.03.1910. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as
prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by
the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the majority community
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
people in A.S.No.36 of 2012. The Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and on
considering the findings of the Trial Court, concurred with the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal
through judgment and decree dated 17.02.2014.
3. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the
Appellate Court, a second appeal was filed before this Court in
SA No.891 of 2014. This Court framed the substantial questions of
law and ultimately, dismissed the second appeal through
judgement and decree dated 30.10.2014, thereby the concurrent
judgment and decree of both the Courts below was confirmed.
For proper appreciation, the relevant portions in the order
passed in the second appeal are extracted hereunder :-
8. Now, the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff would only contend that the
plaintiff should not be prohibited from removing the
broken parts of the buildings of suit Temple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
Mandapam, compound wall and the shops and
renovate the same by way of new building. At this
juncture, though, an attempt was made by the
learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/defendants by contending that the
question of Management of the Temple has to be
decided first, in fact, on a perusal of the judgments
of Courts below, it is seen that both Courts below
have concurrently held that the defendants are not
in Management of the Temple. In fact, P.W.3-
Panchayat Union President, who belongs to the
particular community of the defendants, has been
examined, who has categorically admitted that it is
the plaintiff and their family members, who are in
Management of the Temple, coupled with the fact
D.W.2-Tahsildar also admitted that the defendants
have not produced any documents to show that they
are in the Management of the Temple and therefore,
both Courts below have rightly held that the
plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, but,
the relief was restricted to the extent that the
defendants were injuncted from disturbing the
plaintiff from removing the broken parts of the
buildings of suit Temple Mandapam, compound wall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
and the shops and renovate the same by way of new
building.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
also brought to the notice of this Court that
subsequently a Peace Committee Meeting was
organised and the Collector also addressed a letter
to the Assistant Commissioner (H.R.&C.E.), who in
turn vide communication in
Na.Ka.No.3137/2012/A8/dated 03.12.2012 has stated
that the Temple does not come under the control of
H.R.&C.E. Department.
10. In any view of the matter, the right of the
appellants/defendants to participate in the Temple
function and to worship in the Temple is not in any
way denied by the plaintiff and the same is
recorded. This Court finds that there is no question
of law much less any substantial question of law
involved in the Second Appeal. Hence, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the judgment and
decree of the Lower Appellate Court, dated
17.02.2014. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
4. The majority community which had lost before all the
Courts, thought it fit to use their muscle power to prevent the
petitioner from proceeding further with the renovation work and
administering the temple. Hence, a law and order problem was
created and the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated
10.12.2014, directed the petitioner to hand over the
administration of the temple and to submit all the relevant
accounts. On receipt of the same, the petitioner had sent a
detailed representation and explained the entire facts of the
case. The petitioner had specifically brought to the notice of the
2nd respondent the decree passed by the Competent Civil Court
and also the fact that the conduct of the majority community
will actually amount to a contempt of the decree passed by the
Civil Court.
5. The above representation did not convince the 2nd
respondent and the 2nd respondent thereafter proceeded to
issue the impugned proceedings dated 27.03.2015 whereby the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
petitioner was informed that a fit person is going to be appointed
to administer the temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present
writ petition was filed before this Court.
6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The
relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted
hereunder.
6. This Writ petition has been filed by Thiru.Muniappan only
relating to the adminitation of Arulmigu Murugan Kandasamy
temple. There is a law and order problem in this village
among the Vanniar and Okkaligar communities which reflect
in the administration of the temple also. Each and every
affair of the temple, the day to day administration, the
renovation works, and festivals are disturbed and affected by
the communal problems existing in this village and every time
they are all carried out after conducting peace committee
meetings and arriving peace among the two groups of
community people. All other averments are denied and are at
the strict proof of the petitioner himself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
7. From the records available it is come to our knowledge
that a suit was filed by the person in defacto management/
the petitioner herein before the District Munsif Court,
Dharmapuri in O.S.92/2011 for restraining the defendants
Palani and others from interfering the renovation works
conducted by the petitioner in Arulmigu Murugan temple and
the suit was decreed as prayed for on 9.7.2012. The aggrieved
defendants filed an appeal in A.S.36/12 before the Sub-Court,
Dharmapuri which dismissed on 17.2.14.Thereafter a Second
Appeal S.A. 891/2014.
was preferred by the defendants in High Court, Madras which
is still pending. It is submitted that a all the above legal
proceedings the HR&CE department was not a party and they
are relating to only the renovation of the temp and hence the
orders of the same have no impact in the administration of
the temple.
Five shops have been built in the temple premises and
the income from the shops are to utilize for the
administration purpose of the temple. There are several
criminal proceedings among the both communities in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
relation to the leasing out the shops and when every time
law and order problem was created and the same was
solved with the police protection and peace meetings
conducted by the Revenue authorities. Highlighting the
problem, it is submitted that in Arulmigu Mariamman
temple there are two hundials installed on by Vanniars
and another byokkaligars.
8. It is evident from the report of Dharmapuri, RDO
communicated to the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE,
Dharmapuri vide R.C.No 5618/2014 A2 dated 6.12.2014
that there are several criminal cases pending on the
villagers belonging to both communities and due to such
incidents the entire Samichettipatti village is not having
any peace and there is no amicable situation among the
villagers for the last four years.
9. In order to avoid the continuous communal problems
the temple was taken into the depertinent's control as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
Arulmigu Murugan and Mariamman temple vide
Commissioner's R.Dis 2554/2015/ E4 dated 27.03.2015
and Fit person was appointed vide Dharmapuri, Assistant
Commissioner's Pro.RC No.945/2015 A3 dated 22.5.2015 and
the fit temple on person took the charges of the 9.6.2015.
.Challenging the order of taking over of the temple under the
control of the department, this writ petition has been filed by this
petitioner.
7. Heard Mr.Vineet Subramani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned
Special Government Pleader for respondents.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made on either side and the materials available on record.
9. On considering the submissions made by the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents and on carefully perusing the counter affidavit, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
seen that the respondents were taking steps to take over the
administration of the temple by appointing a fit person only to
prevent any untoward incident taking place due to the clash
between two communities. Several peace meetings were
conducted and no agreement was reached between the parties
and hence, the respondents thought it fit to bring the temple
within their control by appointing a fit person.
10. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to
whether the respondents can proceed further to take over the
administration of the temple and to appoint a fit person only on
the ground that there is a law and order problem prevailing and
they want to take control of such a situation.
11. The respondents derive their powers under the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as Act). The appointment of a fit person
is dealt with under Section 49 of the Act. For such appointment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
of a fit person, the concerned temple must come within the
scope of “religious institution” as defined under Section 6(18) of
the Act. It is clear from the records that the temple has been
recognized by a competent civil Court to belong to the family of
the petitioner and same being maintained by them from the year
1910 onwards. Hence, if really, a situation has arisen for
declaring the temple as a religious institution, the joint
commissioner has to initiate an inquiry under Section 63(a) of the
Act, which involves providing opportunitu to all the parties
concerned in accordance with the holding of inquiries rules. If
ultimately, upon enquiry, the concerned authority reaches a
conclusion that the temple has assumed the character of a
religious institution, the question of appointing a fit person will
arise for consideration.
12. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has proceeded
to initiate steps for appointment of a fit person only on the
ground that there is a law and order problem between the two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
communities. The Act does not empower the 2nd respondent to
appoint a fit person on the ground that has been stated in the
impugned order. The respondents being the creature of the
statute, must act within the four corners of the statute and they
cannot exercise a power that has not been specifically provided
under the Act.
13. The major community which suffered a decree of a
Competent Civil Court, cannot be allowed to defeat the fruits of
the decree by creating a law and order problem. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such illegal
act on the part of the majority community is liable to be
punished by taking action under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC. This is
in view of the fact that there is a decree that has been passed in
favour of the petitioner and the same has also become final and
therefore, the fruits of the decree cannot be defeated by
creating a law and order problem. If this is allowed, it will be a
direct challenge to Rule of law that governs the parties. If at all,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
the majority community is creating a law and order problem, it
has to be handled by the police and they should ensure that the
petitioner is not prevented from carrying out the renovation work
of the temple.
14. It is quite unfortunate that the petitioner has been
targeted in this case inspite of a very specific stand taken by the
petitioner both before the Lower Appellate Court as well as
before this Court in the Second appeal whereby the petitioner
made it very clear that after the renovation of the temple, no
one will be prohibited from coming to the temple and worshiping
the God. This shows that the petitioner never intended to
restrict the entry of anyone and he consistently stated that he
has no objection for the other community worshipers from
offering poojas to the deity belonging to the temple. The
petitioner having taken such a stand ought not to have been
prevented from proceeding further with the renovation of the
temple and just because a majority community feels that their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
ego has been hurt, that will not justify the HR&CE Department
getting into the issue and indirectly stopping the petitioner from
enjoying the fruits of the decree.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court has
absolutely no hesitation to interfere with the impugned
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.12.2014 and
05.06.2015 and the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner will
be entitled to carry on with the renovation work of the temple
and maintenance of the temple. This Court also takes into
consideration the stand taken by the petitioner before the Civil
Court to the effect that he will have no objection for the other
community worshipers from offering poojas to the deity of the
temple. If anyone tries to create any law and order problem, the
concerned Superintendent of Police of the District shall ensure
that action is taken against those persons who indulge in such
activities and they are dealt with strictly in accordance with law
and if required, police protection shall also be given. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
impugned proceedings have been quashed, the 2nd respondent is
directed to immediately remove the lock and seal and the
petitioner shall take over the possession of the temple.
16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the
above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.08.2022
rka
Note : Issue order copy on 10.08.2022
To
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Adigal Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department,
Sengundar Kalyana Mandapam,
Pennagaram Road, Kumarasamipettai,
Dharmapuri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.,
rka
W.P.No.24005 of 2015
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
