Arulmigu Vennimadanthaiyan Sastha Kovil, v. The Commissioner / Principal Secretary,

O R D E R By three separate orders, connected writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.25517 of 2019, W.P(MD)No.3596 of 2020 and W.P(MD)No.31333 of 2023 were closed.

¶2In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 05.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent Joint Commissioner under Section 23 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the consequential Show Cause Notice dated 08.06.2020 issued by the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why a fit person should not be appointed, and the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2020 of the Assistant Commissioner appointing the 7th respondent as a fit person of the Temple viz., Arulmigu Vennimadanthaiyan Sastha Kovil.

¶3The dispute in all these writ petitions emanate from a complaint of the 6th respondent herein, namely S.Ganesan with the official respondents herein and the District Collector on 13.03.2018.

¶4Thereafter, the 6th respondent had also filed W.P(MD)No.7310 of 2018 to direct the respondents therein, namely the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, District Collector, the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to consider the representation of the 6th respondent, dated

13.03.2018.

¶5By an order, dated 19.04.2018, W.P(MD)No.7310 of 2018 was closed after recording the submission of the 6th respondent herein (the petitioner therein) that 5th respondent therein, the deponent, namely Alaguvel as well as the 6th respondent herein (the petitioner therein) were being enquired by the officials of the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

6.Pursuant to the enquiry by the 4th respondent herein, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. reports dated 20.08.2018, 23.07.2019 and 10.03.2020 were submitted with the 1st respondent Commissioner. Based on the aforesaid reports, the 2nd respondent, Joint Commissioner has issued the impugned order, dated 05.06.2020, wherein it has been stated as follows: ghu;itapy; fhZk; Fwpg;Gfspy; tug;ngw;w "

cjtp Mizaupd; Kd;nkhopT guprPyid nra;ag;gl;lJ. J}j;Jf;Fb khtl;lk;> jpUr;nre;J}u; tl;lk;> nrl;bahgj;J fpuhkk; mUs;kpF ntd;dpkle;ijad; rh];jh jpUf;Nfhapiy mjd; epu;thf eyd; fUjpAk;>

J}j;Jf;Fb

cjtp

Mizaupd; gupe;Jiuia Vw;Wk;> ,j;Jiwapd; fPo; nfhz;L te;J> rpwpa jpUf;Nfhapy; gl;bay;> gjpNtL gf;f vz;> 406> tupir vz;.4y; gjpag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tptuk; njuptpj;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

¶3,j;jpUf;NfhapYf;F rl;ltpjpfspd;gb mwq;fhtyu; FO Vw;gLj;jg;gLk; tiuapy; mtru mtrpak; fUjp jpUf;Nfhapy; epu;thfj;ij ftdpf;Fk; nghUl;L> ,ilf;fhy Vw;ghlhf cldbahf jf;fhu; epakdk; nra;a cupa eltbf;if

vLf;fTk;>

,j;jpUf;Nfhapypd; tUthapid fz;fhzpj;J> cjtpj;njhif epu;za mwpf;ifapid guprPypj;J Nfl;G toq;Fk; tifapy; cupa gbtj;jpy; mwpf;if mDg;gTk;> J}j;Jf;Fb cjtp Mizaiuf; Nfl;Lf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

¶4,j;jpUf;NfhapYf;F ITMS Code ngw cupa eltbf;ifapid

Nkw;nfhs;sTk;

cjtp MizaUf;F mwpTWj;jg;gLfpwJ."

¶7Vide the Impugned Order dated 05.06.2020, the 2nd respondent, Joint Commissioner had brought the subject temple under the department's control based on the Assistant Commissioner's recommendation, and further instructed the Assistant Commissioner to appoint a temporary trustee (Thakkar), until a board of trustees is formed as per law, to manage the affairs of the temple and further instructed the Assistant Commissioner to monitor the temple's revenue and submit a report regarding grants, and take necessary steps to obtain an ITMS Code for the temple.

¶8The challenge to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent, Joint Commissioner is that Section 23 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 has been violated as the order has been passed by the 1st respondent Commissioner without a reasonable opportunity of making representation.

¶9Although facts on record reveal that the 6th respondent herein has filed W.P(MD)No.7310 of 2018 and it was closed on 19.04.2018 after recording the submission of the 6th respondent herein (the petitioner therein) that 5th respondent therein, the deponent, namely Alaguvel who was impleaded on

19.04.2018 as well as the 6th respondent herein (the petitioner therein) were being enquired by the officials of the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner, it is noticed that no notice was issued to the deponent herein, 5th respondent therein before impleading. The report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.08.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.769/2018/Aa1 is a detailed report. It reads as under: Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapy; njhlu;ghf jpU.fNzrd; "

vd;gtuhy; nrd;id cau;ePjpkd;wk; kJiu fpis> kJiuapy; njhlug;gl;l W.P(MD)No.7310 of 2018 tof;fpy; 19.04.2018 md;W toq;fg;gl;l jPu;g;gpd; mbg;gilapy;>

J}j;Jf;Fb

,e;J

rka mwepiyaj;Jiw cjtp Mizauhy; Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapy;

njhlu;ghf

02.07.2018

md;W jpU.gp.v];.fdfuh[;>

jpU.v];.fNzrd;

kw;Wk; jpU.nr.moFNty;

MfpNahuplKk;

kw;Wk; jpU.rp.moFNty; vd;gtu; Ntz;bf;nfhz;lthW md;dhuplKk; 09.07.2018 md;Wk;> NkYk; 12.07.2018 md;W jpUr;nre;J}u; ruf Ma;tuplk; cjtp Mizauhy; tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;L thf;F %yk; ngwg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapy; rl;lg;gpupT gpupT 6(20)y; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s Nfhapy; vd;w

tiuaiwf;Fs;

tUtjhy;

Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapiy ,j;Jiw MSifapd;fPo; nfhz;L tuyhk; vd Ma;tu; jkJ thf;F%yj;jpy; njuptpj;J> Nkw;gb jpUf;NfhapYf;fhd Kjy; mwpf;ifAk; Ma;tuhy; rku;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mjid njhlu;e;J Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapiy cjtp Mizauhy; 17.08.2018 md;W Neubahf Kfhk; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;L Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapiy cjtp Mizauhy; Neupy; ghu;itaplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w tptuk; gzpe;J njuptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. VdNt jpUr;nre;J}u; tl;lk;> nrl;bahgj;J> mUs;kpF ntd;dpkle;ijad; rh];jh jpUf;Nfhapy; midj;J rKjha kf;fSk; topgLtjhYk;> 1959k; tUl ,e;J rka mwf;nfhilfs; rl;lk; gpupT 6(20) y; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s Nfhapy; vd;w tiuaiwf;Fs; tUtjhYk; ,j;Jiwapd; Neub Msifapd; fPo; nfhz;L te;jhy; jpUf;Nfhapy; ed;F tsu;r;rp mila

tha;g;Gfs;

cs;sjhYk;>

mjpf mstpy; ,j;jpUf;Nfhapy; epu;thfk; rk;ge;ekhf Gfhu; kDf;fs;

mDg;gg;gLtjhYk;>

jpUf;Nfhapy; epu;thfj;jpw;F

mtg;ngau;

Vw;gLtjhYk;> jpUf;Nfhapy; epu;thfj;ij xOq;FgLj;Jtjw;Fk; mUs;kpF

ntd;dpkle;ijad;

rh];jh jpUf;Nfhapiy ,j;Jiw Neub Msifapd; fPo; nfhz;L te;J jpUf;Nfhapy;fs; gl;baypy; Nru;j;J cj;jutplyhk;

vd;w

tpguk;

gzpe;J njuptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ,j;Jld; Ma;tuJ mwpf;if> Kjywpf;if kw;Wk; mjd; ,izg;Gfs; Mfpait gzpe;J rku;g;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ."

¶10The report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.08.2018 states that Mr. Ganesan, the 6th respondent herein filed W.P. (MD) No. 7310 of 2018, leading the Assistant Commissioner to conduct inquiries regarding the subject Temple. It further states that depositions were obtained from Mr. P.S. Kanagaraj, Mr. S. Ganesan, the 6th respondent herein and Mr. S. Alaghuvel, the deponent of the petitioner temple and the inquiry concluded that the temple falls under the definition of a "temple" as per Section 6(20) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It further stated that the temple was inspected on 17.08.2018, confirming its eligibility to be brought under the department's control. The Assistant Commissioner, the 4th respondent herein recommended that the temple be placed under the direct administration of the department given its potential for growth and existing management complaints,.

¶11The deponent incidently has also filed O.A.No.41 of 2021 before the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 before the Joint Commisioner, HR&CE Department, Tuticorin to declare the subject Temple as a private Temple wherein an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to inspect the Temple and to give a report in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.A.No.41 of 2021 filed by the 5th respondent herein. Order dated 24.11.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.A.No.41 of 2021 was the subject matter of W.P(MD)No.31333 of 2023 filed by the deponent of the petitioner Temple which was closed on 01.08.2024 by this Court.

¶12The counter filed by the 7th respondent states that the Temple was taken over pursuant to the report of the 4th respondent and that during the enquiry, the deponent, namely S.Alaguvel was informed about the same.

¶13The counter filed by the 4th respondent on behalf of the respondents 1,2 and 3 as well states that admittedly the possession and enjoyment of the Temple land to an extent of 12 Acres in total was with the deponent of the petitioner.

¶14The counter further states that during the Temple festival such as Panguni Uthiram Thiruvizha, more than 1000 persons from different communities would participate and that there are approximately 640 persons who pay Uthiram Vari (Tax). It further states that the amounts that were collected as Uthiram Vari

(Tax) were used for Pooja expenses for pooja conducted through out the year in the Temple.

¶15The counter further states that during enquiry, it was found that the deponent S.Alaguvel who has filed O.A.No.41 of 2021 had never paid any lease amount for possession and enjoyment of 12 Acres of land and that he had not taken any steps to lease out the Temple property to public auction to generate income and utilize it for the development of the Temple.

¶16The counter further states that a detailed report was submitted to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent wherein it was recommended that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department should take over the control of the Temple. In the counter, it was further stated that a civil suit was filed by the deponent's father, namely Chelladurai Nadar was only for bare injunction against the 3rd party and was not connected with the department.

¶17It further stated that the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order in NE.Mu.No.4068/2019/E2, dated 05.06.2020 exercising the power under Section 23 of the Act, based on the 2nd Respondent's communications dated 20.08.2018,

23.07.20019 and 10.03.2019 and that the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order in Se.Mu.Nu.Ka.No.769/2018/Aal/ dated 02.07.2020 under Section 49(1) of the Act appointing 7th respondent as the "Fit person" for the Temple as no explanation was received from the petitioner to the show cause Notice issued to the deponent of the petitioner on 08.06.2020.

¶18On the legal submissions, the learned counsel for the official respondents has referred to Paragraph No.15 of the counter and the same reads as under: "15. I submit that it is a settled law that all temples in Tamil Nadu are Public temples unless they are declared as not religious Institutions as per section 63 (a) of the Act. The impugned proceedings dated 05-06-2020 of the 2nd respondent is merely a record of fact that the temple in issue is a Public temple. Therefore, no notice is necessary for issuing it. An opportunity before actually taking control of temple by appointment of fit person only has to given. In the instant case, show cause notice was issued to petitioner and he sought for time to explain and the proceedings of 2nd respondent, which was also served on him. Despite opportunity given, he did not respond. The fit person was appointed by proceedings dated 02-07-2020 only subsequently. Therefore, there is no legal ground for petitioner to challenge the impugned orders. Hence the Writ Petition is misconceived and is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed."

¶19The learned counsel for the 7th respondent / fit person has drawn attention to an order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.3596 of 2020, dated

11.03.2020, in Paragraph Nos.6,7 and 13, which reads as under: "6. In view of the submissions made, a restricted right is given to the petitioner herein to enter upon the lands of the temple to take care of the crops grown there till the next hearing date and thereafter, get further directions from this Court.

¶7Naturally, the petitioner cannot encumber or deal with the property and cannot claim any further right. This is stated in view of the apprehension placed by the learned Special Government Pleader.

¶13Interim direction to enter into the lands of the temple will continue till 08.04.2020. Any expenditure or income earned from taking care of the agricultural products may be properly accounted for by the petitioner."

¶20I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the official respondents and the private respondents.

¶21The impugned order of the second respondent dated 05.06.2020 is based on the report of the fourth respondent, Assistant Commissioner indicating the conduct of the deponent of the petitioner i.e.,Mr.S.Alaguvel, as the trustee of the petitioner temple, has misused the possession and enjoyment of 12 Acres of the Temple land and had not properly maintained records for the collected amount.

¶22Prima facie, there are indications that the petitioner temple is a public temple and therefore it would come with a purview of the H.R. & C.E. Department under the provisions of H.R. & C.E. Department. However, before declaring a temple to be a public temple coming with the purview of the H.R. & C.E notice ought to have been issued to the deponent of the petitioner that the control of the temple was taken over by the H.R. & C.E. department.

¶23Similarly, the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2020, issued by the 4th respondent, provided only few days time for the deponent of the petitioner Temple to respond and immediately thereafter on 02.07.2020, a fit person has been appointed, within one week after furnishing the copies of proceedings referred to in the impugned Order dated 05.06.2020 to the deponent of the petitioner Temple vide letter dated 22.06.2020. The appointment has been made purportedly pursuant to direction of this Court in W.P.No.3596 of 2020 dated

11.03.2020.

¶24Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are violations of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

¶25Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.06.2020 and Consequential Show Cause Notice dated 08.06.2020 shall be treated as a addendum to the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner represented by the deponent shall reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent shall thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of 3 months. In case, a decision is taken thereafter to take over the temple, the impugned order dated 02.07.2020 passed by the 4th respondent appointing a fit person shall be acted upon.

26.With the above observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

02.09.2024 Index: Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order kkd To:

¶1The Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner (Head Quarters), Office of the Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai 600 034.

¶3The Joint Commissioner (Head Quarters), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli.

¶4The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi.

C.SARAVANAN, J. kkd Pre-delivery Order in

02.09.2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 24.06.2024 Delivered on 02.09.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.7886 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.25517 & 3596 of 2020 Arulmigu Vennimadanthaiyan Sastha Kovil, Rep.by its Trustee S.Azhaguvel ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner (Head Quarters), Office of the Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai 600 034. 3. The Joint Commissioner (Head Quarters), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi. 5. Ramar 6. S.Ganesan 7.The Fit Person, Arulmigu Vennimadanthaiyan Sastha Kovil, Chettiyapathu, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 4th respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.769/2018/Aa1 dated 02.07.2020 and in Na.ka.No.769/2018-2/Aa1 dated 08.06.2020 and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Ni.Mu.No.4068/2018/E2 dated 05.06.2020 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Meenalakshmi Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Saravanan For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Govt.Pleader For R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R6 : Mr.K.Gokul For R7 : Mr.M.Muthugeethian