Madras High Court
R.Rajesh Pandi vs The Secretary To Government on 12 June, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD)No.15917 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.15917 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12048 of 2025
R.Rajesh Pandi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Charitable Endowments
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Administration Department, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai – 625 001.
4.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department, Ellis Nagar, Madurai North.
5.Board of Trustees,
Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple,
Melamadai, Madurai.
____________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.15917 of 2025
6.Saravana Pandian
7. P.M.Chellapandi
8.Lakshmi
9.Ponnupandian
10.Rishi Pandian
11.Jai Veera Pandian ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent dated
28.03.2025, vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.151/2024/AA1 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anandhavalli
For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.SS.Madhavan
Additional Government Pleader
For R9 and R11 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 28.03.2025,
passed by the third respondent, the Joint Commissioner, in the proceedings under
Na.Ka.No.151/2024/AA1.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
2. By the impugned order, the proceedings initiated by the show-cause
notice dated 13.06.2024 were confirmed. The petitioner, in his capacity as a
Trustee, has been superseded due to an alleged act of misfeasance on the date of
inspection, i.e., on 15.12.2023. During the inspection, a team of officials from the
H.R. & C.E. Department allegedly found the petitioner issuing tickets in the
temple using the temple's QR code and it is claimed that the petitioner
misappropriated temple funds.
3. It is the case of the respondents that after the show-cause notice was
issued on 13.06.2024, the petitioner delayed in filing a reply and multiple
adjournments were granted to the petitioner. The final hearing was fixed on
26.03.2025, but the order was passed on 28.03.2025.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that although the show-cause notice was
issued on 13.06.2024, he could only file a reply on 03.02.2025 because the
documents were provided to him only on 01.08.2024. Further, it is submitted that
the impugned order was passed by the third respondent, Chelladurai, who was
serving as the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madurai. However,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
at that time, Mr.Chelladurai had been ordered to be transferred on 19.03.2025.
Despite this, he proceeded to pass the impugned order on 28.03.2025, after his
transfer.
5. In response, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that
although the transfer order was issued on 19.03.2025, the incumbent was actually
relieved from his duties only on 31.03.2025, after the impugned order was passed.
It was further submitted that the incumbent had been seized of the case from the
date the show-cause notice which was issued on 13.06.2024 and that over a year
had passed, during which approximately seven enquiry notices were issued before
the impugned order was passed.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the
petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice dated 13.06.2024, which was
submitted on 03.02.2025, had been considered thoroughly in the impugned order.
Therefore, it was contended that there is no merit in the challenge to the
impugned order. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has an alternate remedy
available before the Commissioner under Section 26(5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the
"H.R. & C.E. Act").
7. Further, the petitioner raised the contention that the proceedings against
other Hereditary Trustees were initiated under Section 53(1)(a) of the H.R. & C.E.
Act. However, in the petitioner's case, the proceedings were initiated under
Section 26(1) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, purportedly under sub-clause (h) of the
H.R. & C.E. Act, following an inspection conducted on 15.12.2023. Therefore,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this represents unfair
discrimination, as the statutory safeguards under Section 53(1)(a) of the H.R. &
C.E. Act, were not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, it was contended that the
impugned order should be set aside.
8. In response to a query from the learned Additional Advocate General
regarding whether the incumbent, who passed the impugned order and had
subsequently been transferred to Rameswaram vide order dated 19.03.2025, could
be deputed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, the learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that the impugned order is well-reasoned.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
It was noted that the petitioner had repeatedly sought adjournments and the order
was passed on merits after thoroughly considering the petitioner's reply.
9. Furthermore, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
impugned order is a reasoned and appealable order and the petitioner has the
option to appeal before the Commissioner under Section 26(5) of the H.R. & C.E.
Act.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents 9 and 11, who are also the
other Trustees nominated pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
along with the petitioner, sail along with the respondents/Government and
submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the collection of amounts in a
manner that deprives the Trustees of their rightful share of the income from such
collections.
11. It was further submitted that the proceedings under Section 26 of the
H.R. & C.E. Act are summary in nature and therefore, the petitioner cannot expect
the procedural safeguards provided under Section 53(1)(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
to apply in this context. In support of this argument, a reference was made to the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Krishnamoorthy vs.
The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department and others, rendered on
08.11.2017 in W.A.(MD)Nos.1273 to 1277 and 1247 to 1251 of 2016. The
learned counsel referred specifically to Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the said
judgment, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
''36.Thus, on a plain reading of Section 26, in its entirety, a clear
picture emerges that the decision to be taken by the Joint Commissioner /
Deputy Commissioner, as to whether a trustee has become subject to any
disqualification, is a summary decision and such decision cannot be
placed in the same pedestal as a decision which is required to be taken
under Section 53 (2) of the Act, which deals with the power to suspend,
remove or dismiss any trustee.
37.Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the procedure
required to be followed to decide the question of disqualification under
Section 26 (3) or (4) is a decision to be taken in a summary manner
adhering to the principles of natural justice. If we are to read the
procedure under Sub Section 3 of Section 53 into Sub Section 3 of
Section 26, we would be rewriting the statute, which cannot be done.''
12. A reference was also made to Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the said
judgment, which reads as follows:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
''54. As we have held that the power of supersession of the Board
of trustees is distinct from the power under Section 53 to suspend, remove
or dismiss the trustee, the power under Section 26 is exercisable by the
Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner as the case may be and in
this case, by the second respondent.
55.Having held so, the only remedy open to the petitioners is to file
an appeal to the first respondent under Sub Section 5 of Section 26 of the
Act.''
It is therefore submitted that the impugned order does not merit any interference,
and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents 9 and 11 further drew attention
to the difference in the language between Section 26(1)(h) and Section 53(2)(j) of
the H.R. & C.E. Act, which read as follows:
Section 26(1)(h) of the H.R. & C.E. Act Section 53(2)(j) of the H.R. & C.E. Act
26. Disqualification of trustees.- (1) A 53. Power to suspend, remove or
person shall be disqualified for being dismiss trustees.- (2) the appropriate
appointed as, and for being, a trustee of authority may suspend, remove or
any religious institution or dismiss any trustee, if he-
endowment,- (j) acts adversely to the interests of
(h) if he has acted adverse to the the institution or endowment.
interest of any religious institution or
endowment.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
14. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order was served on the petitioner only on 22.05.2025.
15. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondents,
and the learned counsel for the respondents 9 and 11, I am of the view that the
petitioner has been a recalcitrant noticee. The petitioner did not respond promptly
to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2024. Instead, the petitioner repeatedly
delayed filing the reply, despite the documents being furnished to the petitioner
on 01.08.2024. The reply was filed only on 03.02.2025. After that, only a few
days remained before the incumbent was transferred to Rameswaram, as per the
order dated 19.03.2025. The incumbent would have been under pressure to
complete the proceedings, as he had been seized of the matter, since the issuance
of the show cause notice on 13.06.2024.
16. The question of whether the petitioner was rightly proceeded against
under Section 26 of the H.R. & C.E. Act and whether the impugned order was
justifiable, can be addressed by the petitioner through the appellate proceedings
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
before the Commissioner under Section 26(5) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. In the
interests of justice, this Court grants the petitioner the liberty to file a statutory
appeal before the Commissioner, who serves as the Appellate Authority under
Section 26(5) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, within a period of two weeks from the date
of this order.
17. The official respondents shall maintain the status quo ante. It is open
for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief, including the stay of the impugned
order, before the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall consider and dispose of
such a request, taking into account the prima facie merits of the case, the balance
of convenience, the injury that may be caused to the temple and the prejudice to
the petitioner. The Commissioner is directed to dispose of the stay petition
expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing the
appeal.
18. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No 12.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
smn2
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
To:-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Charitable Endowments
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Administration Department, Ellis Nagar,
Madurai – 625 001.
4.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department, Ellis Nagar, Madurai North.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
12.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 05:05:09 pm )
