Madras High Court
R.Purusothaman vs The Commissioner on 26 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.13054 of 2024
R.Purusothaman ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
Trichy.
3.The Executive Officer,
The Executive Officer / Joint
Commissioner,
A/m. Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple,
Vellithirumutham Village,
Srirangam Taluk,
Trichy District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 07.08.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.18700 of 2024.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.A(MD)No.1678 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
For R-3 : Mr.M.Saravanan
Standing counsel
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the writ Court dismissing
the writ petition filed by him seeking to forbear the respondents from
initiating any proceedings to disposses the petitioner from the shop inside
the premises of Arulmighu Ranganathar Temple at Srirangam, pursuant to
the order dated 15.05.2024 made by the 3rd respondent and the errata
dated 25.05.2024 pending disposal of the unnumbered revision petition
filed on 08.07.2024 before the 1st respondent. These proceedings have a
chequered history. The petitioner was granted lease of a shop inside the
temple and a decision was taken in the year 2014 to remove the stall in
view of the impending consecration of the temple. The notice was issued for
eviction and orders came to be passed under Section 78 in the year 2019
to be specific on 31.01.2019 and 27.02.2019. These orders were subject
matter of challenge in the appeals before the Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 81 of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Those appeals
were dismissed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The petitioner pursued his challenge under Section 114 of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by way of a
revision before the Government. The Government dismissed the revision
petition by way of G.O.Ms.Nos.426 and 427 dated 18.11.2023. The said
orders made in the revisions under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Act, 1959, were challenged by the petitioner in a
batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.30614 of 2023 etc. The writ petitions
came to be disposed of on 21.12.2023. While dismissing the challenge, this
Court had observed that the respondents will consider the case of the
petitioners sympathetically and allot an alternative place and the
petitioners will also be permitted to run the shop for three months inside
the temple. The claim of the petitioners for alternative site was rejected by
the Government.
3. After the expiry of three months, the Executive Officer of the
temple issued notice on 25.05.2024, requiring the petitioner to vacate and
deliver vacant possession of the shops. This notice was again made subject
matter of challenge under Section 21 before the Commissioner. Apart from
moving the Commissioner by way of a revision under Section 21, the
petitioner has also filed the instant writ petition wherein the petitioner
prayed for a negative mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting
him till the disposal of the revision by the Commissioner. The Writ Court
had dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the direction to allot
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an alternative site is not a pre-condition for eviction.
4. The writ Court has also concluded that time granted by this Court
in another proceeding cannot be extended by the Writ Court. It was also
concluded that the pendency of the revision under Section 21 will not
preclude the Executive Officer from taking possession of the property since
eviction orders have already been confirmed by the Commissioner, the
Government as well as this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would however contend that if the revisions are disposed of by
granting them in an alternative site then they can move to that alternative
site. Hence, their possession should not be disturbed till such time the
revisions are disposed of by the Commissioner. Though there is a positive
direction by this Court to the Commissioner to dispose of the revisions
within a period of two (2) weeks, we are informed that the said direction
has not been complied with. However, that cannot be a ground to enable
the petitioner to continue in possession of the shop. Removal of shop
inside the premises of temple is a policy decision that has been taken by
the Department.
5. Therefore, we do not think we can grant time to the petitioner,
despite the fact that the proceedings were commenced even in the year
2019. We therefore do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal,
therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. It will be open to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner to move the learned judge who dismissed the earlier batch of writ
petitions granting time seeking further time if they are so advised. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
26.09.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Sml
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Department,
Trichy.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
26.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
