Madras High Court
S.Somasundaram vs The Commissioner on 23 August, 2022
W.A.No.1858 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
Writ Appeal No.1858 of 2022
S.Somasundaram .. Appellant
Vs
The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034. .. Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.12822 of 2020.
For the Appellant : Mr.Gururaj
for Mr.D.Baskar
For the Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE)
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1858 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated
23.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition for challenge to the demand notices issued under Section 92 of
the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [for brevity,
“the Act of 1959”].
2. The writ petition was pressed in the light of the suit decreed in
favour of the temple in the second appeal, being S.A.No.1742 of 1992,
where the issue was regarding appointment of trustees in Arulmighu
Kumbeswarar Koil and not in reference to the issue dealt with by the
learned Single Judge, which is as to whether the temple was within the
purview “public temple” as defined under Section 6(20) of the Act of
1959. The learned Single Judge has given a specific reference to the
earlier litigation when the temple in question was declared as public
temple and trustees have paid the amount under Section 92 of the Act
of 1959 till the fasli year 1428 (2018-2019). The receipt for the
payment was issued by the respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1858 of 2022
3. Section 92 of the Act of 1959 was challenged before this Court
in W.P.No.3203 of 1970 and the same was dismissed. A writ appeal,
being W.A.No.389 of 21974, was filed and by the judgment dated
23.09.1974, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment
passed in the writ appeal, Civil Appeal No.1010 of 1975 was preferred
before the Apex Court and the same was also dismissed on
30.08.1990 confirming the validity of Section 92 of the Act of 1959.
The issue that remains for consideration is in regard to the status of
the temple. In the second appeal, no finding has been recorded that
Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil is not a public temple. Rather, it is in
reference to the appointment of trustees and accordingly, no
interference in the demand raised under Section 92 of the Act of 1959
was made.
4. It is also the fact that the respondent before the learned
Single Judge has referred a notification published under Section 46(1)
of the Act of 1959 declaring the temple in question to be a public
temple. It was found that general public are worshiping in the said
temple and it is not restricted to the people of Sengundha Mudaliar
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1858 of 2022
community alone. It was also found that audits are conducted by the
HR & CE Department and the appellant has paid contribution from fasli
1389 to 1427 (up to 2018-2019), apart from payment of audit fees.
Those averments were not denied, but the fact remains that
publication declaring Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil, Kurinjipadi,
Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District to be a public temple was not
questioned.
5. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to
cause interference in the order unless the appellant successfully
challenged the publication declaring the temple to be a public temple
and remained successful therein. The liberty aforesaid would not
affect the outcome of this litigation. However, till the challenge
remains successful, the appellant has to satisfy the payment, as the
appellant earlier paid the required payment till the year 2018-2019.
6. The writ appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty
without causing interference in the order of the learned Single Judge.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1858 of 2022
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.10316 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
23.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To
The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1858 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
N.MALA,J.
bbr
Writ Appeal No.1858 of 2022
23.08.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
