Madras High Court
S.Vadivel vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 21 March, 2022
W.A.No.632 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.632 of 2022
S.Vadivel .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Perunthitta Valagam,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner-cum-
Executive Officer,
A/M Angalamman Thirukoil,
Mel Malayanoor,
Gingee Taluk,
Villupuram District - 604 204. .. Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.02.2022 in W.P.No.24783 of 2021.
For the Appellant : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
For the Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE)
for respondent Nos.1 to 3
: Mr.S.Sithirai Anandan
for respondent No.4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment
dated 16.2.2022 by which the writ petition preferred by the
appellant was dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order dated
13.10.2021 issued by the Tourism, Culture and Endowments
Department granting approval for elected trustees of Arulmigu
Angalamman Temple situated at Mel Malayanoor, Gingee Taluk,
Villupuram District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
3. The facts of the case show that for the management of the
temple in question, a scheme was formulated on 27.1.1936. As per
the scheme so framed, seven trustees are to be elected, one each
from seven branches of families. The term of office of the trustees
was one year, which was subsequently raised to three years. The
first respondent, thereupon, issued a government order dated
15.12.2015 confirming the term of office of the trustees as two
years from the date on which the Chairman of the Board of Trustees
is elected and, presently, the said government is in operation.
4. In the instant case, the election of the trustees took place
on 30.12.2019 and, accordingly, result was declared. As per the
scheme and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [for brevity, "the Act of 1959"],
the tenure of the elected trustees is two years and the period,
according to the appellant, expired on 30.12.2021 itself and,
therefore, the election of new trustees should have taken place.
However, instead of holding fresh elections, the respondent
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
authorities issued G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 13.10.2021 approving the
election of trustees on 30.12.2019 and stating that they will hold
the post of trustees for a period of two years from the date of
election of Chairman.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the
provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Act of 1959, the term of
office of the trustees was only for a period of two years and the
period expired on 30.12.2021. However, the respondent authorities
vide the government order dated 13.10.2021 while permitting the
trustees to select a Chairman, stated that the trustees of the temple
shall hold the post for a period of two years from the date of
election of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. In the case on
hand, the Chairman was elected on 16.2.2022 and it is, therefore,
submitted that by no stretch of imagination the tenure of trustees
elected on 30.12.2019 could be extended for two years from
16.2.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the orders
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
passed by the learned Single Judge pending hearing of the writ
petition requiring the State Government to explain the reason for
the delay in granting approval of the election of the trustees held on
30.12.2019. On the first occasion, no affidavit explaining the delay
was given and, therefore, extending the period for filing the
affidavit, another order was passed, but despite such extension, no
affidavit was filed. He, therefore, submitted that the period of two
years should have been counted from 30.12.2019 and, accordingly,
the tenure of two years should be from the date of election and not
from the date of approval by the Government or election of the
Chairman. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. We have considered the submission made by learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
8. The facts which are not in dispute are that the trustees
were elected on 30.12.2019. The list of elected trustees was
forwarded to the government for approval by the second
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
respondent. The approval was granted by the government order
dated 13.10.2021, which was the subject-matter of challenge in the
writ petition. Though the delay in granting approval was not initially
explained before the learned Single Judge, a counter affidavit was
filed by the respondent authorities and it was averred that after
election, verification of antecedents, qualification, etc., of the
elected trustees was done and due to the pandemic Covid-19, the
verification process could not be completed immediately.
Considering the aforesaid explanation acceptable, the learned Single
Judge did not find any reason to cause interference in the order
passed by the respondent authorities.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the tenure of the trustees is to be reckoned from the date of
election and there is no provision in the Act of 1959 which permits
the tenure of two years from the date of approval of the election of
the trustees by the State Government or from the date of election
of the Chairman. He added that during the intervening period, the
trustees had arranged for some programme in the temple and,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
therefore, they have taken charge of the post.
10. The aforesaid has been seriously controverted by learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent
authorities. He submits that a perusal of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge shows that the trustees have not taken charge
in the intervening period and, in any event, the trustees are entitled
to hold the post for a period of two years from the date of election
of the Chairman.
11. In view of the above submission made by learned
Special Government Pleader and in the absence of any material to
show that trustees have taken charge immediately after their
election, we cannot accept the statement of learned counsel for the
appellant that the trustees had already taken charge.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant though initially stated
that Section 47 of the Act of 1959 would not be applicable to the
facts of the case, later on submitted that tenure of the trustees of
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
two years is governed by the principle enumerated in Section 47(3)
of the Act of 1959. However, he submitted that there is no
provision in the scheme which stipulates that the term of elected
trustees shall commence from the date of election of the Chairman.
13. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that Section
47(1)(a)(iii) of the Act of 1959 applies to this case and added that
pursuant to the government order issued by the respondents, the
period of two years has to be reckoned from the date of election of
the Chairman, i.e., from 16.2.2022, and, therefore, the tenure of
the trustees has not yet expired.
14. A perusal of the government orders dated 15.12.2015 and
13.10.2021 shows that the tenure of two years of the trustees
would be reckoned from the date of election of the Chairman, Board
of Trustees and the argument of learned counsel for the appellant
that the tenure has to be reckoned from the date of election of
trustees runs counter to the aforesaid government orders.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
15. In view of the above, we find no reason to take a different
view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. However, we
make it clear that the respondent authorities should approve the
election of trustees at the earliest and if verification of antecedents,
qualifications, etc. is to be conducted, it would be without lapse of
time, rather it should be completed within one month, subject to
extension for justifiable reasons to be recorded. That apart, the
respondent authorities should strictly adhere to the Functioning of
the Board of Trustees Rules, which stipulates the time period within
which the Chairman should be elected.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. There will
be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.4456 of 2022 is
closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
21.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Perunthitta Valagam,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.632 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.632 of 2022
21.03.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
