Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The very fact that the petitioner himself has filed suchapplication only after the impugned order came to be passed showsthat the petitioner cannot call himself as hereditary trustee of thesaid temple. In such circumstances, challenging the appointment ofthe Fit Person by the petitioner is…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 1.9.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.5759 of 2009 Jagadeesan Mudaliar..PetitionerVs.
The Assistant Commissioner H.R & C.E. Department Tiruvallur District.
The Inspector/Thakkar H.R. & C.E. Department Gummidipoondi Taluk Tiruvallur District... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Certiorari to calling for the records of the 1strespondent relating to his procedings in proc/R.C.No.1180/2008/B,dated 13.2.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Balasubramaniya KumarFor Respondents: Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Spl. Government PleaderORDERThis writ petition is directed against the order of the firstrespondent dated 13.2.2009, by which the first respondent by invokingthe powers under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for brevity, "the Act") hasappointed a Fit Person to manage Arulmigu Dharmaraja Drowpathi AmmanTemple, Madharpakkam, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been the hereditarytrustee of the above said temple collecting rent from various tenantsof the temple. However, a reference to various rental agreementsfiled in the typeset of papers show that the petitioner has beencalling himself as a Secretary of the Thiruppanikuzhu of the temple. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleaderbrought to the notice of this Court, as it is seen in the typeset ofpapers filed by the petitioner, that after challenging the impugnedorder of the first respondent dated 13.2.2009 only, the petitionerhas made an application on 30.3.2009 to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., Vellore to declare him as hereditary trustee of the saidtemple under Section 63(b) of the Act. The learned SpecialGovernment Pleader also submitted that under Section 63(b) of the Actthe competent authority to decide the application is the JointCommissioner, H.R. & C.E. and not the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. &C.E..
Operative part
The very fact that the petitioner himself has filed suchapplication only after the impugned order came to be passed showsthat the petitioner cannot call himself as hereditary trustee of thesaid temple. In such circumstances, challenging the appointment ofthe Fit Person by the petitioner is not maintainable and thepetitioner is not entitled to any relief. However, since thepetitioner has made an application under Section 63(b) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Vellore, who is the competentauthority, is directed to treat the application dated 30.3.2009addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., as an applicationfiled under Section 63(b) of the Act and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law, after giving opportunity to all the parties, andsuch orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event within twelveweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is madeclear that till a decision is taken by the Joint Commissioner, H.R. &C.E., the Fit Person appointed shall continue to administer thetemple. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.sasi Sd/- Asst. Registrar/True Copy/ Sub. Asst. RegistrarTo:1. The Assistant Commissioner H.R & C.E. Department Tiruvallur District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. The Inspector/Thakkar H.R. & C.E. Department Gummidipoondi Taluk Tiruvallur District.3. The Joint Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Department Vellore.+ 1 cc to Government pleader SR.43761+ 1 cc to Mr.R. Balasubramaniya Kumar, Advocate Sr.43596.W.P.No.5759 of 2009PUR (CO)EU 11.09.2009.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959 — s. 49(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.