P R THIRUPATHY Vs. COMMISSIONER; JOINT COMMISSIONER; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER; FIT PERSON; S P SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be trustees of Arulmighu Kariaperumal Temple, Paruvachi Village, Chembulichampalayam Post, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, and the first petitioner is the hereditary trustee.

(2.) The petitioners would state that the said temple is an ancient temple constructed about 500 years ago by a group of persons belonging to particular community to which they belong. It is stated that the deity is worshipped by the said community as their Kuladeivam. It is further stated that the temple is a denomination temple in character and the temple was maintained by the forefathers of the petitioners and the petitioners 1 to 4 are the Dharmakarthas of the temple. It is further stated that a person belonging to another community is said to have interfered with the administration of the temple maintained by the ancestors of the petitioners, which necessitated their ancestor had filed a Suit in O.S.No.1185 of 1921, before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and it is stated that a decree was passed on 18.09.1923, by which the petitioners' claimed the temple belongs to a particular community and managed by the said community from generation. The petitioners would further state that during February 2013, the temple was renovated and the cost of renovation was met with the contributions from the people belonging to the petitioners' community and the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department also participated in the Kumbabishegam. Further, it is submitted that the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Erode, is supervising the temple from 1995 and the petitioners have maintained the accounts of the temple as advised by the third respondent. Whileso, the third respondent passed an order on 18.09.2013, appointing the fourth respondent as fit person of the temple in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners would further state that the said order was not communicated to the petitioners and the petitioners sought for information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and thereafter, only were informed about the said order. It is stated that the order has been passed in violation of provisions of the Act, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it is stated that the impugned order does not assign any reason for appointing the fit person, when the petitioners are properly managing the temple under the supervision of the third respondent. The said order dated 18.09.2013, which according to the petitioners was communicated to them only on 13.12.2013, is impugned in the Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners after referring to the factual details as stated above, submitted that the third respondent without issuing notice to the administrators of the temple, passed the impugned order and the order was neither communicated to the first petitioner, hereditary trustee or to any one of the other trustees. Further, it is submitted that the third respondent does not have jurisdiction to appoint a fit person, since the temple is a denomination temple, established, maintained and managed exclusively by a particular community people. Therefore, it is submitted that notice ought to have been issued to the persons, who are administering the temple. Further, it is submitted that there is a reference to a report of the Inspector, HR & CE, Bhavani, dated 24.06.2013, which has not been furnished to the petitioners and the impugned order does not assign any reason as to why a fit person has to be appointed. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Administration) Dept., Madras vs. K.Jothiramalingam & Anr., 1985 AIR(Mad) 341 and the decision of this Court in the cases of Solamuthuraja vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, 2010 2 CTC 289; P.Rathinavelu vs. The Commissioner Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment in W.P.No.28206 of 2010, dated 22.12.2010; and A/m.Athanooramman Podarayasamy, vs. Assistant Commissioner H.R.,&C.E., (Admn.,) & Ors., in W.P.No.22466 of 2011, dated 31.07.2012.