Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs The Commissioner on 10 March, 2022
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD).No.4263 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD).No.3637 of 2022
Balamurugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Administration,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Trichy.
3.S.Mahendran ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12.02.2022 in
Na.Ka.No.4601/2021/A1 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been filed for challenging the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12.02.2022 bearing reference
Na.Ka.No.4601/2021/A1.
3. By the impugned order, the second respondent Joint Commissioner
has given an innocuous directions to maintain accounts and to open bank
accounts etc. These directions of the second respondent appear to be in
consonance with the law laid down in Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dr.Subramanain Swamy and others Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 MLJ
62. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department will have no right to interfere with the affairs of a
religious denomination in the light of Section 107 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1969 read with Article 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India. At the same time, the above observations were given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
with a caveat that the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1969 have a reserve power to regulate the management or
administration of the temple, which belongs to religious denomination in case
of specific complaint of maladministration and mismanagement. This view
was followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Arulmighu
Balagurunathasamy Sametha Angala Parameswari Amman Thirukoil Vs
The Assistant Commissioner, Departement of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment, 2017 (4) CTC 705. Though the decision of a
learned Single Judge was appealed before the Division Bench in W.A.
(MD).No.1190 of 2017. The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the writ
appeal filed by the official respondents herein, the appellant therein. It
appears that there in a past history to the denomination temple called
Arulmighu Pichayee Amman Thirukoil, Piramanar Kovil Street,
Manachanallur Taluk, Thiruchy District.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the temple was under a control of
the petitioner’s great grandfather Muthu Veeran Chettiar and that the erstwhile
Board concluded that the said temple was a denominational temple and the
hereditary trustee could administer the affairs of the temple by an order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
03.12.1932, vide Board Order No.1875. In 1980, at the behest of the third
respondent’s father, namely, S.Seshan Chettiar, a non hereditary trustee was
appointed by the Board and therefore a suit in O.S.No.407 of 1980 before the
Subordinate Judge Court at Thiruchirappalli was filed by petitioner’s
grandfather Natesan Chettiar and grand uncle Chinnathambi Chettiar. The
suit was decreed as prayed by the Trial Court on 16.03.1983, which was
categorically held that the plaintiffs, namely, Chinnathambi Chettiar and
Natesan Chettiar, were entitled to a declaration that the temple was a
denominational temple belongs exclusively to the plaintiffs therein and that
the plaintiffs were entitled for declaration and injunction sought for.
5. Later sometime, in the year 2003, the third respondent’s father
appears to have filed O.S.No.169 of 2003, before the Additional District
Munsif Court, Lalgudi. The said suit was filed for rendering of accounts. The
suit was dismissed. A further appeal was filed before the Appellate Court in
A.S.No.138 of 2010. The said Appeal Suit was also dismissed by the
Appellate Court on 31.01.2013. Thereafter, the third respondent appears to
have given a representation on 08.07.2021, pursuant to which an order came
to be passed by the second respondent Joint Commissioner on 29.11.2021,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
whereby a fit person was appointed by the second respondent. The petitioner
therefore filed W.P.(MD).No.21873 of 2021. The said writ petition was
disposed on 09.12.2021, by setting aside the order, dated 29.11.2021 of the
second respondent and the case was remitted back to the second respondent to
pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner, as the said order was
passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the second respondent has now
passed the impugned order denovo. In the denovo proceedings, as mentioned
in the beginning of this order, the impugned order has given certain innocuous
directions to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot have any complaint as the
petitioner has been asked to merely maintain accounts and file appropriate
documents regarding the assets of the temple etc. Therefore, to that extent,
there cannot be any interference by the petitioner either before this Cout or
before appellate authority or revisional authority under the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, asking the petitioner to
work out an alternate remedy once again before the civil Court prima facie
appears to be beyond the powers vested with the second respondent Joint
Commissioner inasmuch as the suit filed by the petitioner’s grandfather and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
granduncle in O.S.No.407 of 1980 has conclusively decided the issue.
Similarly, the direction in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order
asking for a meeting of the members to appoint a hereditary trustee also
appears to prima facie contrary to the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
in O.S.No.407 of 1980.
7. Therefore, I am inclined to keep the operation of the last two
paragraphs in the impugned order in abeyance for a period of sixty days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order with liberty to the petitioner to work
out an alternate remedy under Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act before the Commissioner.
8. In proposed application under Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, the petitioner shall array the third respondent,
herein, as a respondent. Such application shall be filed within a period of
thirty days. In the said proceeding, the petitioner is also given a liberty to file
a miscellaneous application for continuation of this interim order beyond 60
days pending disposal of such application before the Commissioner under
Section 21 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
9. The writ petition stands disposed with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
sn
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Administration,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4263 of 2022
C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn
W.P(MD).No.4263 of 2022
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
