R.MAHADEVAN,J. - (1.)The petitioner - Saiva Samarasa Sutha Sanmarga Sabai, Dindigul, claiming that since it is a religious denomination, the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 would not be applicable to the said Sabai, has come forward with this writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order made by the second respondent in his proceedings in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.1135/2015/A3, dated 04.06.2015, in and by which, the third respondent has been appointed as a Fit Person for the administration of the petitioner Sabai and consequently, forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioner's right to administration of Saiva Samarasa Sutha Sanmarga Sabai, Dindigul.
(2.)The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows:
The petitioner - Saiva Samarasa Sutha Sanmarga Sabai, Oddanchathiram, is a society registered under the provisions of the Registration of Societies Act , 1978 as Sl.No.47 of 1978. The petitioner Sabai has been established and administered by the members of the said Sabai, who are the followers of the principles of Saint Vallalar. The said Sabai, which is functioning for more than 300 years, is a denomination institution entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (5) SCC 75. Eversince the establishment of the petitioner Sabai, it has been conducting the affairs of the denomination with its members and further, it permits all the members of the public who follow vegetarianism and conform the principles of Saint Vallalar in the said Sabai irrespective of caste, religion or race;

According to the petitioner, the Sabai owns a number of properties and is administering the same in exercise of its constitutional right under Article 26(c) and (d) of the Constitution of India. A landed property to an extent of 8.39 acres in S.No.31, Oddanchathiram Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, was purchased by the petitioner Sabai in the year 1948 by a registered sale deed as Document No.1660 of 1949, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Oddanchathiram, for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and the petitioner Sabai is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner Sabai has also been granted ryotwari patta on 20.05.1968 by the settlement authorities;

While so, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 16.04.2015 claiming that the petitioner Sabai is a religious institution under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 and directed to appear on 04.05.2015 to show cause as to why a Fit Person should not be appointed for the management of the petitioner Sabai. Consequent to the same, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 04.05.2015 and submitted his explanation stating that the petitioner Sabai is not a religious institution governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 and thus, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint a Fit Person for the petitioner Sabai;

Despite the explanation of the petitioner, the second respondent without considering the same, passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner Sabai indulged in mismanagement of the properties and also obtained patta in respect of the said lands and thereby, appointed the third respondent as a Fit Person for the administration of the petitioner Sabai;

It is alleged by the petitioner that in the show cause notice dated 16.04.2015, the second respondent did not whisper about the mismanagement of the petitioner Sabai, however, while passing the impugned order, dealt with the alleged mismanagements of the petitioner Sabai and appointed a Fit Person for the administration of the petitioner Sabai and thus, it is vitiated in the eye of law; and Since the petitioner Sabai is a religious denomination, the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 are not applicable to the petitioner Sabai as per Section 107 of the said Act. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sabanayagar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (5) SCC 75. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.)Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, learned Counsel appearing for M/s.Ajmal Associates, for the petitioner - Sabai, made the following submissions: The petitioner - Saiva Samarasa Sutha Sanmarga Sabai, Oddanchathiram, is a society registered under the provisions of the Registration of Societies Act , 1978;
The members of the petitioner Sabai are the followers of the principles of Saint Vallalar;

The said Sabai is a denomination institution entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (5) SCC 75;

The petitioner Sabai is functioning for more than 300 years and it has been managing the affairs of the denomination with its members; All the members of the public who follow vegetarianism and conform the principles of Saint Vallalar in the said Sabai irrespective of caste, religion or race are permitted to the petitioner Sabai;

The petitioner Sabai is being protected under the constitutional right under Article 26(c) and (d) of the Constitution of India;

The property to an extent of 8.39 acres in S.No.31, Oddanchathiram Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, was purchased by the petitioner Sabai in the year 1948 by virtue of a registered sale deed as Document No.1660 of 1949 for a valuable consideration and the petitioner Sabai is in possession and enjoyment of the same;

The ryotwari patta has been granted to the said property on 20.05.1968;

In the meantime, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 16.04.2015 alleging that the petitioner Sabai is a religious institution under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 and called for explanation from the petitioner with regard to appointment of a Fit Person;

Despite the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.05.2015 in person that the petitioner Sabai is not a religious institution, but a denomination institution not governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959;

However, the second respondent passed the impugned order appointing the third respondent as a Fit Person for the petitioner Sabai and hence, it exhibits the non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent;

Further, in the notice issued by the second respondent, there is no allegation with regard to the alleged mismanagement in the petitioner Sabai, but, the second respondent, without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Sabai, passed the impugned order and thus, it is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; In terms of Section 107 of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the petitioner Sabai, however, the second respondent overlooked the said fact and passed the impugned order, warranting interference at the hands of this Court;

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sabanayagar Temple v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (5) SCC 75;

The petitioner Sabai, being a denomination institution, is entitled to establish and administer any religious institution and to manage its own affairs and its properties;

Since the petitioner Sabai is a denomination institution, the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959 would not be applicable to the petitioner Sabai; and Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing this writ petition.