KRUPA OONAMUTROR MARUVALVU KALVI ARAKKATTALAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, in directing the respondents 3 to 5 to permit the petitioner to run the Home by opening the sealed Trust and Home and by handing over the articles seized on 27.2.2003 from the Home and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the Trust & Home.

(2.) THE petitioner Trust was founded on 26.1.2001 by the Founder and Managing Trustee N.Murugesan Benjamin at Coimbatore in the name of "kiruba Oonamutra Kulanthaikal Kalvi Kaappagam for the welfare of the physically challenged children with the strength of six of them. On being informed that the minimum strength to get recognition was 35, the Founder and Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust had not applied for approval for running of the Home, but when the strength reached 30, he submitted an application for approval of the Trust on 26.7.2002 before the second respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the act of respondents 3 to 5 in seizing the articles of the petitioner Trust and sealing the Trust, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without considering the explanation given by the petitioner is per se and illegal one which is an arbitrary one and also is in violation of principles of natural justice and further the Founder of the petitioner Trust was maintaining the proper account for all the incomes and expenditures of the Trust right from the beginning of the Trust and after receipt of the reply by the Founder of the petitioner Trust, the third respondent was silent for more than eight months and suddenly without notice entered the premises of the Trust and seized the articles etc which was an illegal one and indeed the petitioner's Trust was a registered one under the Indian Trust Act 1882 and the Registered Number of the Trust was 1179/2001 which aspect of the matter was not taken into account by the authorities concerned, while taking action against the petitioner and also another important fact was that the application of the petitioner Trust for approval was pending before the second respondent and this aspect was not taken into account by the authorities concerned and the petitioner was appreciated with social welfare activities ever since 1991 and the welfare of the physically challenged children only, he founded the Trust and started the Home but the same was not appreciated by the authorities concerned in a proper perspective and the respondents 3 to 5 had sealed the Trust and seized the articles without adhering to especially the procedural formalities like issuance of notice to the petitioner before ever taking action and out of 30 physically challenged children, 7 of them were mentally retarded without father or mother and there was no complaint them against the petitioner Trust and therefore prays for allowing the writ petition to prevent an aberration of justice.