JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)All these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009 by the High Court of Madras affirming the judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 18248 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the writ Petitioner-Podhu Dikshitars to administer the Temple.
In Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013, the Appellant has raised the issue of violation of the constitutional rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Constitution') in relation to the claim by Podhu Dikshitars (Smarthi Brahmins) to administer the properties of the Temple in question dedicated to Lord Natraja. The same gains further importance as it also involves the genesis of such pre-existing rights even prior to the commencement of the Constitution and the extent of exercise of State control under the statutory provisions of The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1951') as well as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1959').
Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013 is on behalf of Podhu Dikshitars claiming the same relief and Civil Appeal No. 10622.2013 has been filed by the Appellants supporting the claim of the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013.
(2.)For convenience in addressing the parties and deciding the appeals, we have taken Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013 as the leading appeal. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as under:
A. That Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple') is in existence since times immemorial and had been administered for a long time by Podhu Dikshitars (all male married members of the families of Smarthi Brahmins who claim to have been called for the establishment of the 'Temple in the name of Lord Natraja).
B. 1 he State of Madras enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1927'), which was repealed by the Act 1951. A Notification No. G.O. Ms. 894 dated 28.8.1951 notifying the Temple to be subjected to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act 1951 was issued. The said notification enabled the Government to promulgate a Scheme for the management of the Temple.
C. In pursuance to the same, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. Madras (hereinafter called the 'Board') appointed an (Executive Officer for the management of the Temple in 1951 vide order dated 28.8.1951 etc.
D. The Dikshitars, i.e. Respondent No. 6 and/or their predecessors in interest challenged the said orders dated 28.8.1951 and 31.8.1951 by filing Writ Petition Nos. 379-380 of 1951 before the Madras High Court which were allowed vide judgment and order dated 13.12.1951 quashing the said orders, holding that the Dikshitars constituted a 'religious denomination' and their position vis- -vis the Temple was analogous to muttadhipati of a mutt; and the orders impugned therein were violative of the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution.
E. Aggrieved, the State of Madras filed appeals before this Court, which stood dismissed vide order dated 9.2.1954 as the notification was withdrawn by the State-Respondents. After the judgment in the aforesaid ease as well as in The Commissioner. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR(SC) 282 (hereinafter referred to as 'Shirur Mutt Case'), the Act 1951 was repealed by the Act 1959. Section 45 thereof empowers the Statutory Authorities to appoint an Executive Officer to administer the religious institutions. However, certain safeguards have been provided under various provisions including Section 107 of the Act 1959.
F. On 31.7.1987, the Commissioner of religious endowment in exercise of his power under the Act 1959 appointed an Executive Officer. Consequent thereto, the Commissioner HR & CE passed an order dated 5.8.1987 defining the duties and powers of the Executive Officer, so appointed for the administration of the Temple.
G. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 7843 of 1987. The High Court of Madras granted stay of operation of the said order dated 5.8.1987. However, the writ petition stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.2.1997.
H. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 preferred Writ Appeal No. 145 of 1997 and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 1.11,2004 disposed of the said writ appeal giving liberty to Respondent No. 6 to file a revision petition before the Government under Section 114 of the Act 1959 as the writ petition had been filed without exhausting the statutory remedies available to the said Respondent.
I. The revision petition was preferred, however, the same stood dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2006 rejecting the contention of the Respondent No. 6 that the order dated 5.8.1987 violated Respondent's fundamental rights under Article 26 of the Constitution observing that by virtue of the operation of law i.e. statutory provisions of Sections 45 and 107 of the Act 1959, such rights were not available to the Respondent No. 6, in this order, the entire history of the litigation was discussed and it was also pointed out that the Executive Officer had taken charge of the Temple on 20.3.1997 and had been looking after the management of the Temple since then. The said order also revealed that the Respondent No. 6 could not furnish proper accounts of movable and immovable properties of the Temple and recorded the following finding of fact:
The powers given to the Executive Officer, are the administration of the Temple and its properties and maintain these in a secular manner. Hence, the rights of the Petitioners are not at all affected or interfered with, in any manner whatsoever the aim and reason behind the appointment of the Executive Officer is not for removing the Petitioners who call themselves as trustees to this Temple.
J. The Respondent No. 6 preferred Writ Petition No. 18248 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 9.5.2006 which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 observing that the judgment referred to hereinabove in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 379-380 of 1951 titled Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras and Anr., 1952 1 MadLJ 557, wherein it was held that Dikshitars were a 'religious denomination', would not operate as res judicata.
K. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 filed Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009, the present Appellant Dr. Subramanian Swamy was allowed by the High Court to be impleaded as a party. The Writ Appeal has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009.
Hence, these appeals.
(3.)The Appellant-in-person has submitted that Article 26 of the Constitution confers certain fundamental rights upon the citizens and particularly, on a 'religious denomination' which can neither be taken away nor abridged. In the instant case, the Dikshitars had been declared by this Court, in a lis between Dikshitars and the State and the Religious Endowments Commissioner, that they were an acknowledged 'religious denomination' and in that capacity they had a right to administer the properties of the Temple. Though in view of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 107 of the Act 1959, the State may have a power to regulate the activities of the Temple, but lacks competence to divest the Dikshitars from their right to manage and administer the Temple and its properties. It was strenuously contended that the High Court committed an error by holding that the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Marimuthu Dikshitar would not operate as res judicata. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.