SOLAMUTHURAJA Vs. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent under Section 45 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appointing an Executive Officer in respect of the third respondent temple. According to the petitioner, his father, grand father, and great grand fathers were functioning as hereditary trustees of the temple for more than 100 years and there is one another hereditary trustee of the temple by name Thiru. Perumal Muthuraja. After the demise of the said Perumal Muthuraja his son Mr. Vaithiyalingam is functioning as the hereditary trustee. THE petitioner and the said Perumal Muthuraja filed a petition under Section 69/1 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, in O.A.No.262/1976, the said petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.11.1977. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred to the first respondent in A.P.No.51 of 1978 which was allowed by the first respondent by an order dated 29.06.1981. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner and Perumal Muthuraja were declared as hereditary trustees of the temple. Whileso, the first respondent by the impugned order, appointed the third respondent as Executive Officer of the temple. THE said order is questioned primarily on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice since no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the affidavit would submit that it is true that the second respondent had obtained the signatures of both the petitioner and other trustee P. Vaithialingam on 20.06.2008 stating that they shall consent for appointment of Executive Officer in terms of Section 45(1) of the Act. But even if such consent is granted, the first respondent while exercising the power under Section 45 ought to issue notice to the petitioner and other non hereditary trustee, before passing an order and such procedure has not been complied with.