Madras High Court
Indic Collective Trust vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 February, 2022
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.2.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.3371 of 2022 &
WMP Nos.3481, 3482 & 3484 of 2022
1. Indic Collective Trust
5E, Bharat Ganga Apartments
Mahalakshmi Nagar 4th Cross Street
Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088
Rep. by its President T.R.Ramesh.
2. T.R.Ramesh .. Petitioner
vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Principal Secretary
Tourism, Culture and Religious
Endowments Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034. .. Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to recall all
Executive Officers who are functioning without valid appointment
orders, without valid reasons for their appointment or appointed under
Section 43-A or 45 or have been appointed before the Conditions for
Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 was notified and order
handover of the temples to the trustees/communities/sampradhayas
(or their descendants) from whose hands the temples were taken over
by the authorities in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department.
For Petitioners : Second Petitioner
Appearing-in-Person
For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan
Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR&CE)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard the parties.
2. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to recall all the Executive Officers, who are functioning
in different temples without any valid appointment.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
3. The second petitioner, appearing in person, submits that in
non hereditary temples, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department appointed Executive Officers
without authority of law and even if such appointment is made, they
continue to be in service beyond the period of five years, which is
not permissible. The records show that the appointment was made
without disclosing the period and the Executive Officers so
appointed were allowed to continue beyond the period of five years
in violation of the relevant Rules.
4. According to the second petitioner, such appointments are
in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri-
la-Sri Subramania Desika Pandara Sannati Vs. State of Madras [AIR
1965 SC 1683] wherein the Apex Court held that the Deputy
Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be,
is not bound, in framing a scheme, to appoint an Executive Officer
in every case and a case must be made out for such appointment.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
5. The learned Counsel, further relying upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy and others
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2014) 5 SCC 75], would
submit that if only the administration of a temple is not proper, it
can be superseded.
6. It is his further submission that the said judgment of the
Supreme Court does not permit the appointment of Executive
Officers unless the conditions are satisfied and that too, not for
indefinite period. The said judgment of the Supreme Court has been
ignored by the respondents in appointing the Executive Officers and
continuing them in the appointment so made for years together. A
prayer is made to cause interference with the order of appointment
of the Executive Officers and accept the writ petition with an interim
order.
7. A reference to Sections 43A and 45 of the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act of 1959) has been given
to make it clear that the Commissioner can exercise some powers.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
8. The writ petition has been contested by the side opposite.
9. It is a case where not in one, but in more than 600
temples, the Executive Officers were appointed from time to time
by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department in the absence of appointment or nomination of
trustees. It is not in dispute that in most of the non hereditary
temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, the trustees have not been
appointed/nominated for the past 10 - 12 years. In the absence of
the trustees in the non hereditary temples, the appointment of
Executive Officers was made by the Commissioner invoking the
power under Section 43A and Section 45 of the Act of 1959.
10. The issue regarding the appointment of trustees was
taken up and this Court was seized of the matter and certain
directions were also given to expedite the process of appointment of
trustees. This Court, while addressing a similar issue in
W.P.No.23070 of 2021 in the order dated 21.2.2022, observed
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
regarding the process of appointment/nomination of trustees, which
is at two levels, one for those temples having revenue more than
Rs.10 lakh and the other having revenue less than Rs.10 lakh. The
process of appointment of trustees has already begun and is
nearing completion.
11. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to
maintain the writ petition, after a lapse of 10 - 12 years, challenging
the appointment of Executive Officers, knowing fully well that in the
absence of appointing/nominating the trustees, the Executive
Officers were appointed.
12. Sections 43A and 45 of the Act of 1959 are quoted
hereunder for ready reference :
"43-A. Appointment and duties of executive
officers in temples under maths.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 45 or any other provision in this Act, the
Commissioner may appoint, subject to such conditions
as may be prescribed, an executive officer for any
temple under the control of a math.
(2) The executive officer shall be subject to the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
control of the trustee of the math and shall exercise
such powers and discharge such duties as may be
prescribed.
(3) The Commissioner may, for good and
sufficient cause, suspend, remove or dismiss the
executive officer.
.....
45. Appointment and duties of executive officer—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, the Commissioner may appoint, subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed, an executive officer for
any religious institution other than a math or a specific
endowment attached to a math.
Explanation.—In this section “math” shall not
include a temple under the control of a math.
(2) The executive officer shall exercise such
powers and discharge such duties as may be assigned to
him by the Commissioner:
Provided that only such powers and duties as
appertain to the administration of the properties of the
religious institution referred in sub-section (1) shall be
assigned to the executive officer.
(3) The Commissioner may define the powers
and duties which may be exercised and discharged
respectively by the executive officer and the trustee, if
any, of any religious institution other than a math or a
specific endowment attached to a math.
(4) The Commissioner may, for good and
sufficient cause, suspend, remove or dismiss the
executive Officer."
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
13. Section 43A of the Act of 1959 gives power to the
Commissioner for appointment of Executive Officer for any temple
under the control of the math. It is, however, subject to the control of
trustees and the Commissioner is having power to suspend, remove
and dismiss the Executive Officers also. Section 45 of the Act of 1959
allows appointment of the Executive Officers in religious institution. As
a matter of fact, the same petitioner, representing M/s.Temple
Worshippers Society, had earlier challenged the conditions of
appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015, by way of W.P.No.2290
of 2017, even while upholding the constitutional validity of the Rules, a
Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
“Section 45 read with Section 74 makes it clear that
there is already sufficient provisions in the said parent
Act for appointment of Executive Officers for every
institution (underlining done by us for supplying
emphasis). In the judgment of the Supreme Court
reported in 2014 (V) SCC 75 (Dr.Subramanian
Swamy and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its
anguish and stated that Executive Officers need to be
appointed by framing and prescribing Rules for the
same.”
Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
Executive Officers was in violation of the relevant provisions of law.
14. A reference to Rule 3(x) of the Conditions for Appointment
of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 has been made, which is quoted
as hereunder :
"3. Where the Commissioner either suo-motu or
upon the report received from the Joint Commissioner or
Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner having
jurisdiction, considers it necessary,-
...
(x) for any other reason,
the Commissioner may, after holding such inquiry as he
may consider it necessary and expedient, in the interest
of such religious institution, by order, appoint an
Executive Officer for such religious institution, for such
period or periods as may be specified by the
Commissioner in the order not exceeding a period of five
years at a time."
15. The Rules aforesaid have no application to the facts of the
case, because the appointment of the Executive Officers is not on
account of malpractice or mismanagement of the trustees of the
temple, but, for the reason given above, namely in the absence of
appointing/nominating the trustees. Therefore, the judgment of the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
Apex Court in the case of Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Pandara
Sannati (cited supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of this
case. It was in reference to the temples having mismanagement or
malpractice or for similar other reasons, which is not the cause for
appointment of the Executive Officer in this case.
16. In view of the above, we do not find that the said
judgment of the Apex Court has been violated by the respondents
while appointing the Executive Officers and otherwise, the second
petitioner failed to justify the laches in filing the writ petition
because in the absence of appointment or nomination of trustees in
the non hereditary temples, the Executive Officers were appointed
long back. The challenge to their appointment has now been made
after a lapse of 10 - 12 years. The writ petition is hit by laches.
17. For all the above reasons, we do not find any ground to
grant the prayer made in the writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently,
the connected WMPs are also dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.)
23.2.2022
Index : Yes/No
To:
1. The Principal Secretary
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
RS
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3371 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
RS
W.P.No.3371 of 2022 &
WMP Nos.3481, 3482 &
3484 of 2022
23.2.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
