Madras High Court
S.Nambirajan vs The Joint Commissioner on 21 January, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2751 & 10731 of 2016
S.Nambirajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Subramaniyasamy Temple,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of
the impugned order of the third respondent dated 03.02.2016 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran
ORDER
***********
In less than one month from today captioned main writ
petition will turn seven in this Court. To put it differently and to
state with specificity captioned writ petition was filed in this Court
on 11.02.2016 and it has been pending for well over half a decade
[nearly 7 years]. At the time of inception of the writ petition an
interim order ie., an order of interim stay has been granted by this
Court vide captioned W.M.P.(MD)No.2751 of 2016 and this order
reads as follows:
'Mr.V.Muruganantham, AGP takes notice for
R1 & R2.
Mr.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Counsel
takes notice for R3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
There shall be an order of interim stay for a
period of two weeks.
Post after two weeks.'
[Extracted and reproduced as such]
2.The above mentioned interim order has been extended from
time to time. The third respondent has filed a vacate stay petition
vide captioned W.M.P.(MD)No.10731 of 2016 on 27.07.2016 and the
same has also been pending for seven years.
3.Be that as it may, Arulmigu Sri Navaneetha Krishnasamy
Temple situate in Kovilpathu, Kalakadu, Nanguneri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of
convenience and clarity] is the nucleus of captioned matter,
appointment of a Fit Person [jf;fhh;] to said temple and a challenge
to a communication from Fit Person to one S.Nambirajan [trustee
of said temple] being communication dated 03.02.2016 [hereinafter
'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is the
central theme of the lis in captioned matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
4.Factual matrix in a nut shell ie., facts that are imperative
for appreciating this order are that one S.Nambirajan was
appointed as a non-hereditary trustee of said temple in 1996 for a
period of three years; that such appointment was under 'the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
(Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' {hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the
sake of brevity}; that the three year tenure [obviously] elapsed in
1999; that said S.Nambirajan had not handed over administration
of said temple to 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department' [hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Dept.,' for the
sake of convenience and clarity]; that this S.Nambirajan has filed
captioned main writ petition styling himself as a trustee of said
temple assailing impugned order; that obviously captioned main
writ petition has been filed on being called upon to hand over
administration of said temple to the Fit Person; that Fit person
appointed qua said temple is Executive Officer of another temple
viz., Arulmigu Subramaniyasamy Temple situate in Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District – 627 117 [hereinafter 'other temple' for the
sake of convenience and clarity]; that other temple is a public
temple.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
5.This Court having set out factual matrix and also the
trajectory which captioned matter has taken in reaching this final
hearing [post completion of pleadings] now embarks upon the
exercise of capturing rival pleadings.
6.Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned Counsel for writ petitioner,
notwithstanding very many averments in writ affidavit and
notwithstanding several grounds raised in writ affidavit made
pointed submissions in his campaign against the impugned order
and a summation of the same is as follows:
a) The impugned order [to be noted, impugned
order is a communication dated 03.02.2016] from
third respondent mentions about an order dated
16.09.2008 bearing reference e.f.vz;.10306/07-2 ,1
vide which the Fit Person appears to have been
appointed but this order was never served on writ
petitioner;
b) The writ petitioner was appointed as a
trustee by TN HR & CE Dept., and therefore, he is
entitled to have a say qua impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
7.In response to aforementioned submissions,
Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 [jurisdictional Joint Commissioner
and Assistant Commissioner respectively] adverting to counter
affidavit filed by the State on 11.07.2016 submitted as follows:
a) The writ petitioner has been called upon to
hand over possession to the previous Fit Person way
back in 28.02.2002 itself and therefore he cannot
even plead ignorance [this is set out in paragraph
No.8 of counter affidavit of the State];
b) The writ petitioner was appointed as a non-
hereditary trustee for said temple [admittedly], such
appointment is only for a period of three years that
elapsed in 1999 and writ petitioner has no right
whatsoever to continue in administration and be
defiant by not handing over administration to the
present Fit Person;
c) The writ petitioner has engineered a suit in
O.S.No.85 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif
Court, Nanguneri. TN HR & CE Dept., contested the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
suit and the suit has been dismissed after full
contest.
8.Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned private Counsel for
Fit Person / Thakkar ie., Executive Officer of other temple made
submissions, the details of which are as follows:
a) Adverting to separate counter affidavit of
third respondent dated 26.07.2016, which has also
been used as support affidavit for vacate stay
petition ie., captioned W.M.P.(MD)No.10731 of 2016
it was submitted that said temple is a public temple
and the writ petitioner cannot claim any vested right
after the three year period for which he was
appointed as a non-hereditary trustee;
b) The third respondent ie., Executive Officer
of other temple has been appointed as Fit Person
under Section 49 of TN HR & CE Act. This is
perfectly in accordance with the Statute and no
exception can be taken to the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
9.In response to the above counter submissions, by way of
reply submissions, learned Counsel for writ petitioner besides
reiterating the submissions made in his opening arguments
submitted that there is a subsequent development and that
subsequent development is a Scheme has been framed for said
temple at the instance of one Subbarayalu and four others vide
order dated 20.01.2021 made in O.A.No.10 of 2018, on the file of
first respondent. This Court is informed that this Scheme is under
Section 64(1) of TN HR & CE Act but it is a draft Scheme and is yet
to be published is learned Counsel's further say.
10.This Court having set out the factual matrix, having
captured the trajectory and also having captured the rival
submissions, carefully considered the rival submissions in the light
of the case file before it. On such careful analysis in the light of the
arguments advanced and submissions made by all aforementioned
learned Counsel this Court is of the considered view that the prayer
in captioned writ petition cannot be acceded to, the discussion and
dispositive reasoning in this regard or in other words the reasons
for such view are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
10.1.Writ petitioner has suppressed O.S.No.85 of 2002. No
proceedings or orders pertaining to this O.S.No.85 of 2002 on the
file of Principal District Munsif Court, Nanguneri [hereinafter 'said
suit' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been placed
before this Court. Therefore this Court took it upon itself to go into
the District Court website and locate the said suit. This Court finds
that said suit has been dismissed by the trial Court in and by
judgment dated 19.08.2008 and such judgment is after full contest.
10.2.Be that as it may what is of greater significance is in the
said suit which has been filed in the year 2002 the prayer is for a
declaration that said temple belongs to a particular community and
that the defendants therein should be injuncted from interfering
with the affairs of said temple. To be noted the three defendants
therein are the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, Executive
Officer of other temple and Commissioner of TN HR & CE
Department, Chennai in that order ie., respectively.
10.3.The suit has been laid by plaintiff in the name and style
'mUs;kpF. etePjfpU\;zrhkp jpUf;nfhtpy;> nfhtpy;gj;J> fsf;fhL mjd; fsf;fhL
nfhtpy;gj;J ft[uh eha[L rKjhaj; jiyth; K:yk; (gpujpepjpj;JtKiwapy;)'. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
means that the suit has been filed as a representative suit obviously
under Order I Rule 8 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of brevity, convenience and
clarity]. More importantly, on a perusal of the judgment and more
particularly paragraph No.7 as downloaded from official website of
the District judiciary brings to light that aforementioned
Mr.S.Nambirajan [writ petitioner] has deposed as P.W.1. The
excerpted part of the relevant portion of paragraph No.7 of
judgment of the District Munsif Court in said suit reads as follows:
''7.tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;j ek;gpuh$d; vd;gth; jd;id
th.rh.1 Mf tprhuiz bra;Jbfhz;Ls;shh;. mth; rhl;rpaj;jpy;
tHf;F nfhtpy;> nfhtpy;gj;J gFjpapy; thGk; ft[uh eha[L
rKjhaj;jpw;F ghj;jpagl;L nkw;go rKjhaj;jhy; eph;thfk; bra;J
tug;gLfpwJ vd;Wk; nkw;go ft[uheha[L rKjhaj;jpy; jhd; xU
mq;fj;jpdh; vd;Wk; i\ nfhtpYf;F 2k; gpujpthjp jf;fuhf
epakdk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhft[k; mthplk; fzf;Ffis xg;gilg;g
ntz;Lbkd 28.2.02y; mwptpg;g[ 1k; gpujpthjpaplkpUe;J
tug;gl;ljhft[k; Mdhy; tHf;F nfhtpy;> nfhtpy;gj;J ft[uh
eha[L rKjhaj;jpw;F jdpg;gl;l nfhtpy; vd;Wk;> mjdhy; 1k;
gpujpthjpapd; eph;thfk; nfhtpy; eph;thfj;jpy; jiyaplnth
mwq;fhtyh;fis wpakdk; bra;anth jf;fhiu epakdk; bra;anth
mjpfhuk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; tHf;F nfhtpy;> nfhtpy;gj;J
ft[uh eha[L rKjhaj;jpw;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W tpsk;gi [ f
bra;anfhhp tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;Js;sjhf Twpa[s;shh;. jd;
tha;bkhHp rhl;rpaj;jpw;F Mjuthf th.rh.M1 Kjy; 7 jhf;fy;
bra;Js;shh;. th.rh.M.1 28.2.02 njjpa mwptpg;g[> th.rh.M.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
15.3.02y; mDg;gpa gjpy; kw;Wk; xg;g[jy; ml;il> th.rh. M.3
thlif urPJfs; th.rh.M.4 ghl;l urPJfs; th.rh.M.5 jPh;it
urPJfs; th.rh.M.6 kpd;fl;lz urPJfs; th.rh.M.7 i\
nfhtpYf;F Vw;gl;l bryt[f;fhd tt[r;rh;fs;.'
10.4.As already alluded to supra, the suit was ultimately
dismissed after full contest. Therefore the writ petitioner cannot
claim ignorance about the suit as the writ petitioner has deposed as
P.W.1 in the suit. The suit itself is of the year 2002 and the
judgment has been rendered by trial Court in 2008. As already
alluded to supra captioned writ petition has been filed only on
11.02.2016. Therefore there is no difficulty in accepting the
submission of learned State Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 that
there is suppression qua writ petitioner with regard to the suit.
The writ petitioner having approached the Civil Court, having made
an attempt to get a declaration that said temple is a community
temple and more particularly seeking permanent injunction from
interfering with the affairs of said temple, ought not to have
suppressed this vital fact in captioned writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
10.5.In the considered view of this Court such suppression by
itself is lethal and fatal to the fate of writ petition. However, this
Court proceeds to examine the other points that have been raised.
10.6.The fact that writ petitioner was admittedly appointed
as non-hereditary trustee and the obtaining position that the
attempt of a group of persons to invoke Order I Rule 8 CPC, file a
suit in District Munsif Court and get a declaration that said temple
is a community temple and having failed the sequitur is said temple
is clearly a public temple. Therefore it is a 'religious institution'
under Section 6(18) of TN HR & CE Act which reads as follows:
'6(18). “Religious institution” means a
math, temple or specific endowment and
includes,:-
(i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or
(ii) any other institution established or
maintained for a religious purpose.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this
clause-
(1) “samadhi”means a place where the
mortal remains of a guru, sadhu or saint is
interned and used as a place of public religious
worship;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
(2) “brindhavan”means a place established
or maintained in memory of a guru, sadhu or
saint and used as a place of public religious
worship, but does not include the samadhi;)
10.7.This takes us to Section 1(3) of TN HR & CE Act which
reads as follows:
'1(3). It applies to all Hindu public religious
institutions and endowments including the
incorporated Dewaswoms and Unincorporated
Dewaswoms.
Explanation.- In this sub-section, Hindu
public religious institutions and endowments do not
include Jain religious institutions and endowments.'
10.8.The TN HR & CE Act received the ascent of the
President on 19.11.1959 and it was first published in official
Gazette on 02.12.1959. Therefore on and from this date said temple
which is a public temple (religious institution) clearly comes under
the sweep of TN HR & CE Dept. Owing to the conjoint reading of
Sections 6(18) and 6(20), the exceptions to these are the powers
vested with the Government to grant exemption. The other option is
filing a suit which has been exhausted by a group of persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
wherein the writ petitioner has deposed. To be noted the excerpted
portion of the civil Court judgments describes writ petitioner
Nambirajan (PW1) as plaintiff meaning he has represented the
plaintiff entity in the civil suit under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. In any
case, the said temple is a public temple but this Court deems it
appropriate to not to delve any further on that aspect of the matter.
10.9.The moment said temple is a public temple, TN HR &
CE Dept., has a duty to safeguard the said temple and its
properties. The said temple by very operation of the Statute comes
under the sweep of the Statute (TN HR & CE Act) and the
administration of TN HR & CE department. There is no concept of
taking over possession or taking over administration. This is very
clear from the Scheme of the Statute. This Court has repeatedly
held that TN HR & CE Act is a self-contained code in a long line of
authorities i.e., catena of case laws. This Court has taken a clear
categoric and unambiguous view that TNHR&CE Act is a self
contained and an illustrative not exhaustive list of this line of case
laws is as follows:
(a) In R.Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar v. The
Commissioner, HR&CE case, reported in
2011 SCC On Line Mad 2474, while inter-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
alia dealing with a honour (during
'Viswaroopa Dharsanam' in Arulmigu
Aranganatha Swamy Thirukovil Srirangam,
Trichy) and while referring to earlier orders
vide Chapter V inquiry proceedings after
holding that remedy is by way of statutory
revision under Section 21, a learned Single
Judge held that TNHR&CE Act is a self
contained code. Most relevant portions are
contained in paragraphs 25 and 27 and the
same read as follows:
Relevant portion in paragraph 25:
'...Ultimately, if at all the petitioner's
grievance to establish an honour attached
to his office if any held it can be gone into
only by instituting a proceedings under
Section 63(e) of the TN HR&CE Act
followed by a suit under Section 70(1) and
a further appeal to this court under section
70(2) of the Act. Merely accusing the Joint
Commissioner cum Executive Officer as
biased or contending that the remedy by
way of revision need not be availed since
the Joint Commissioner cum Executive
Officer has no jurisdiction to pass orders
cannot be countenanced by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
Paragraph 27:
27. In fact the petitioner's hereditary
right to receive honour is seriously under
challenge by the temple management by
relying upon the Tamil Nadu Act 2/1971
and also the allegation was that Rengesa
Prohida service is done only by temple
servants and hereditary succession over
such Kaingaryams is not recognised under
law. The so-called custom pleaded was also
broken many times and reading of
Panchangam was done by other families. All
the more reasons, the petitioner has to only
approach the authority under the Act and
cannot bypass the Act. The Act is the self
contained code. Only after exhausting all
the remedies, a statutory appeal to this
court is available over the action of the
authorities. Under these circumstances,
W.P.(MD) Nos. 9202 and 9263 of 2011 are
also liable to be rejected.'
(Underlining made by this Court for ease of
reference)
(b) In order dated 21.06.2016 in
W.P(MD) No.10840 of 2016 vide
V.Subramanian v. The Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Department case, another Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
Single Judge of this Court while dealing
with challenge to proceedings under
Section 78 of TNHR&CE Act and while
negativing the challenge to an order under
Section 78 of TNHR&CE Act (treating the
writ petitioner as an encroacher) held that
TNHR&CE Act is a self contained code.
This is articulated in paragraph 7 of this
V.Subramanian's order and the relevant
portion in paragraph 7 reads as follows:
'7.It is to be noted that the above said
Act is a self-contained and in-built 'Act'. It
has also gives right to the aggrieved to
move before the appropriate forum under
the 'Act'. As such, this Court is of the
considered view that the Petitioner can very
well seek appropriate remedy as against
the impugned order, dated 16.03.2016 of
the First Respondent and the consequential
order, dated 06.06.2016 of the second
Respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959.'
(c) In Palanichamy v. The
Commissioner, HR&CE Department case,
reported in 2016 SCC Online Mad 21977,
the same Hon'ble Single Judge who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
authored V.Subramanian's case, while
dealing with a challenge to an
order/proceedings under Section 78 of
TNHR&CE Act qua removal of
encroachment reiterated the
aforementioned paragraph 7 of
V.Subramaniam's case. This is in paragraph
30 of Palanichamy's case and the relevant
portion reads as follows:
'30. At this stage, on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is brought to the
Notice of this Court that on 21.06.2016, in
W.P.(MD) No. 10840 of 2016 between V.
Subramanian v. Joint Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Theni, Dindigul and Madurai
Administration, Madurai, this Court, at
paragraph 7, had observed the following:—
“7. It is to be noted that the above said Act
is a self-contained and in-built ‘Act’. It has
also gives right to the aggrieved to move
before the appropriate forum under the
‘Act’. As such, this Court is of the
considered view that the Petitioner can very
well seek appropriate remedy as against
the impugned order, dated 16.03.2016 of
the First Respondent and the consequential
order, dated 06.06.2016 of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
Respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959.'
(d) In M/s.Temple Worshippers
Society v. Government of Tamil Nadu case,
some provisions of one set of Rules which
go by the name 'Conditions for Appointment
of Executive Officer Rules, 2015' ('said
Rules' for brevity and convenience) were
assailed. This challenge was negatived by a
Hon'ble Division Bench presided by Hon'ble
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as Chief Justice
of this Court (as His Lordship then was)
vide order dated 31.01.2017 reported in
2017 SCC Online Mad 7178. I was party to
the Bench and I had penned the order for
the Hon'ble Division Bench. To be noted,
one of the primary grounds of challenge to
some provisions of said Rules which is a
piece of subordinate legislation made by
the Government under Section 116 of
TNHR&CE Act. To be noted, Section 116 of
TNHR&CE Act is a rule making power.
Some provisions of said Rules do not
conform to the statute under which it has
been made and it exceeds the limits of
authority conferred by the enabling statute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
is one of the main grounds on which the
challenge was predicated. In negativing
this challenge, one of the fundamental
premise on which the order was written is
that TNHR&CE Act is a self contained
statute. This is captured in sub-paragraph
(i) of paragraph 5 of the order of Hon'ble
Division Bench and the same reads as
follows:
Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 5:
'(i) The said parent Act was enacted
in 1959 with the object of providing a self
contained statute relating to the
administration and governance of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Institutions and
Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The said parent Act was enacted with the
intention of amending and consolidating the
law relating to the administration and
governance of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Institutions and Endowments in
the State of Tamil Nadu. We are informed
that about thirty six thousands Temples are
administered by the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
(hereinafter referred as ‘TNHR & CE
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
Department’ for brevity) by applying the
said parent Act.'
(e) In R.S.Mani v. The Joint
Commissioner case, an order made by the
jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of
TNHR&CE Dept. being an order under
Section 63(b) of TNHR&CE Act (to be noted
Section 63(b) pertains to declaring the
office of trusteeship of a temple as
hereditary) was assailed. In and by order
dated 09.11.2021 made in W.P(MD) No.
20109 of 2021, I had negatived the
challenge by relegating the writ petitioner
to alternate remedy and while so
relegating, the principles i.e., obtaining
position that the TNHR&CE Act is a self
contained code and Chapter V proceedings
therein (to be noted, Chapter V is captioned
'Inquiry') is a legal drill which has a self
contained mechanism were reiterated. This
is articulated in paragraph 11 of this
R.S.Mani judgment and the same reads as
follows:
'11. The narrative supra as well as the
dispositive reasoning set out supra will
make it clear that the entire matter turns
heavily on facts. As the matter turns heavily
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
on facts, it is only appropriate that the
same is dealt with by a statutory appellate
authority rather than testing it in writ
jurisdiction where the issues are decided on
the basis of affidavits and counter-
affidavits. This is more so, as TN HR & CE
Act itself is a self contained code (as
repeatedly held by this Court) and
therefore, Chapter V proceedings of TN HR
& CE Act is a legal drill which has self
contained mechanism (as already alluded to
supra).'
(f) In C.Rajamohan v. Commissioner &
Another case, a Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court dismissed a PIL (Public Interest
Litigation) wherein the petitioner wanted
his representation regarding worship there
to be considered. In dismissing this PIL, the
Hon'ble Division Bench proceeded on the
basis that the TNHR&CE Act is a self
contained code. This is articulated in
paragraph 2 of this short order dated
26.04.2019 made in W.P(MD) No.10392 of
2019 reported in 2019 SCC On Line Mad
10975. Paragraph 2 of C.Rajamohan's case
reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
'2. In the opinion of this Court, the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Act is a self-contained Code and a
mandamus of this nature in a public
interest litigation cannot be issued. Hence,
this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty
to the petitioner to work out his remedy in
the manner known to law. No costs.'
10.10.The above legal position makes it clear that the
appointment of Fit Person is justified and statutorily imperative by
operation of the Statute. No exception can be taken to
appointment of Fit Person. This takes us to the question of whether
writ petitioner has the right to insist that he will have a say that he
should have been put on notice regarding appointment of Fit
Person. The appointment of Fit Person is clearly a temporary and
transitory measure pending constitution of regular Trust Board.
The TN HR & CE Dept., has a duty to do so. In this case the writ
petitioner's term as trustee having clearly elapsed way back in
1999 and the writ petitioner's attempt to get a declaration from
Civil Court having failed by way of being non-suited, the writ
petitioner certainly cannot claim any right to be put on notice. In
any event the appointment of Fit Person is not only statutory but a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
sacrosanct and sanctus duty cast on TN HR & CE Dept. It cannot
be gainsaid that a person who is holding on to the administration
defiantly should be put on notice and should have a say in
appointment of Fit Person.
10.11.This takes us to one of the arguments projected viz.,
that the appointment of Fit Person has not been challenged. In the
light of the view taken by this Court this pales into insignificance.
10.12.Another aspect of the matter is with regard to factual
dispute as to whether writ petitioner was favoured with a copy of
the order of appointment of a Fit Person, as already alluded to
supra in paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit of the State it has
been positively averred that a Fit Person was temporarily appointed
way back in 2002 and writ petitioner has been put on notice about
such appointment specifically on 28.02.2002. This becomes a
factual disputation but it may not be necessary to go into this
aspect of the matter in the light of the view taken by this Court qua
appointment of Fit Person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
10.13.As Fit Person appointment is a temporary transitory
provision, it clearly does not take away or denude any one of his or
her rights. It is a transitory temporary provision pending
constitution of Trust Board.
10.14.As regards the last submission made by learned
Counsel for writ petitioner in the reply arguments regarding the
Scheme, from what this Court has been informed it comes to light
that a draft Scheme has been put in place under Section 64(1) of
TN HR & CE Act vide order dated 20.01.2021 in O.A.No.10 of 2018
on the file of first respondent and this has to be followed by
publication in the Gazette subject of course to appeal if any under
Section 69 of TN HR & CE Act. If that be so, the law will take its
course. This is outside the scope of the case on hand and this has
been recorded only for the limited purpose of comprehensively
capturing the facts. If there is a Scheme, the Scheme will kick in
and the law will take its course. This Court does not have the
benefit of the Scheme and in any event it is outside the scope of
captioned writ petition. Therefore, this Court does not want to
venture into that aspect of the matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
11.The aforementioned discussions and dispositive reasoning
ie., reasoning set out qua the considered view of this Court the
prayer of the writ petitioner fails . It follows as an inevitable
sequitur that captioned writ petition fails and the same deserves to
be dismissed.
12.Captioned Writ Petition is dismissed. Therefore captioned
W.M.P.(MD)No.2751 of 2016 [stay petition] is dismissed. Captioned
W.M.P.(MD)No.10731 of 2016 [vacate stay petition] is closed.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned suppression, this Court
refrains itself from imposing costs in the case on hand.
21.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
NOTE: In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
To
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
M.SUNDAR., J.
MR
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD)No.3136 of 2016
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
