High Court · 2025

WP No. 852 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESHWP No. 852 of 20211. N.KathirvelS/o.Narayanan, Shastri Nagar, Jagir ammapalayam, Salem Salem2. N.VenkatesanS/o.Narayanan, Chinna Kollapatti, Salem-83. M.KumaresanS/o.Late. Mariappan, Chinna Kollapatti, Salem-84. A.Ravi KumarS/o.N.Arjunan, No.45-C, 13A, Rajaram Nagar, Salem -7 Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Secretary to GovernmentTamil Culture and Religious endowment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 20212.The CommissionerHindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 0343.The Joint commissionerHindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem4.The Fit Person / Asst.CommissionerA/M.Vennangudi Muniappan Tirukoil, Salem5.The Executive officerA/m Vennagudi Muniappan Tirukoil, salem6.Dr.A.MohanS/o.N.Arujunan, No.C13A,Rajaram Nagar, Salem-77.ArumugamS/o.Kuppusamy Poosari, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem8.GopalS/o.Kuppusamy Poosari, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem9.PalanivelS/o.Kuppusamy Poosari, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem10.VelayuthamS/o.Kuppusamy Poosari, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem Respondent(s)PRAYERCalling for the records, pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(Pa).No.26, Tourism, Culture and Endowments (R.E.4-2) Department, Dated 19.02.2020 and quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 2021For Petitioner(s):Mr.W.M.Abdul MaseedFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.RavichandranAdditional Government Pleader for R1 -5Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan for R8-10Mr.K.Ashok Kumar for R5No appearance for R6Ms.C.A.Sharmila for R7ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(Pa).No.26, Tourism, Culture and Endowments (R.E.4-2) Department, dated 19.02.2020.2. The case of the petitioner is that the Venangudi Muniappasamy temple situated at Jagir Amma Palayam, Salem is a listed temple and it falls under the direct administration of the HR&CE Department. The pujas in the temple are carried on by the hereditary pujaris. One Pazhaniappan pujari is the ancestor of the petitioners and the respondents 6 to 10. His sons Mondi @ Arumugam and Azaghan pujaris, continued to perform temple pujas on a turn basis. After them, the descendants were performing the pujas in turns. While so, in the year 1983, the eighth respondent, who is the elder brother of the seventh respondent, assumed himself as the Thakkar of the temple and appointed respondents 7, 9, and 10, who are his brothers. It is alleged that there was misappropriation of funds, and hence they were removed in the year 1989. Since they did not hand over the administration, the department took steps under Section 101 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 2021HR&CE Act, and only pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 15.06.1989, the third respondent took charge of the administration.3. Even thereafter, the private respondents, namely respondents 7 to 10, were indulging in various criminal activities, which resulted in the registration of FIRs in Crime Nos.109 of 1992, 976 of 1993 and 1297 of 1994. In the year 2005, respondents 7 to 10 submitted an application before the fifth respondent to reinduct them as pujaris of the temple. The fifth respondent, without taking note of the criminal antecedents, issued proceedings dated 31.05.2006, reinducting the respondents 7 to 10 as pujaris.4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed a revision before the Joint Commissioner, which was rejected. The same was confirmed by the Commissioner and ultimately by the Government through the impugned Government Order dated 19.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition has been filed before this Court.5. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit and justified the reinduction of respondents 7 to 10 mainly on the ground that more than 16 years had passed since the incident and the private respondents were acquitted in all the criminal cases. There were no adverse reports against them. Since they are entitled as descendants of the pujaris, they were inducted as pujaris. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 20216. The private respondents have also filed a counter affidavit and apart from justifying the stand taken by the official respondents, they have further stated that the respondents 7, 9, and 10 and the son of the eighth respondent are performing pujas for 15 days in a month in turns.7. Heard Mr.W.M.Abdul Maseed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, Mr.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel for respondents 8 to 10, Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Ms.C.A.Sharmila, learned counsel for the 7th respondent.8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record.9. In the considered view of this Court, all the official respondents have lost sight of the fact that the private respondents were found to be indulging in criminal activities and repeated FIRs were registered against them. In fact, even Act 14 of 1982 was clamped against respondents 7 and 8. It is also seen from the earlier proceeding of the Executive Officer dated 10.07.1995 that the request made by the private respondents for reinduction was rejected by citing all their antecedents. While so, on the very same set of facts, the private respondents once again sought reinduction, and the same was considered in the year 2006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 202110. It is true that a person who commits a sin need not be condemned throughout his life. That is on the personal front of the individual. However, while considering the appointment of Pujaris, it is very relevant to take note of previous antecedents. The previous antecedents cannot be brushed aside by giving a finding that, after passage of time, the concerned persons have changed their way of life. The subsequent good conduct on the part of the private respondents is not a ground for disregarding the previous antecedents, and more particularly, considering the earlier proceeding of the Executive Officer dated 10.07.1995. This crucial aspect has not been considered by any of the authorities, and they have all mechanically confirmed the appointment of the private respondents as Pujaris.11. Even in regular service jurisprudence, the previous antecedents of an employee are taken into consideration, and this is more so when it involves moral turpitude. In many employments, that by itself is considered to be a disqualification. When it comes to the appointment of Pujaris, an impeccable antecedent has to be considered, since it involves duties to be performed to the deities. Therefore, people should not get the impression that a person with bad antecedents is allowed to be a Pujari in a temple. To that extent, it will bring down the sanctity of the temple, and that will not augur well for religious institutions, which run more on the basis of “Belief in God”. Hence, the previous conduct of the persons who are appointed as Pujaris has a lot of significance while considering the same, and it cannot be taken lightly by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 2021brushing aside their previous antecedents.12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned Government Order of the first respondent confirming the appointment of the private respondents as Pujaris is liable to be interfered with by this Court.13. The matter is remanded back to the file of the third respondent, namely the Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE Department. The third respondent shall deal with the issue on its own merits and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the observations made by this Court and also grant opportunity to the petitioner and the private respondents. A decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed.10-06-2025gdIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 2021To1.The Secretary to GovernmentTamil culture and Religious endowment Department, Government of TamilNadu, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009Chennai2.The commissionerHindu Religious and charitable Endowment Department, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, chennai 600 0343.The Joint commissionerHindu Religious and charitable Endowment department, Salem4.The Fit Person / Asst.CommissionerA/M.Vennangudi Muniappan Tirukoil, salem5.The Executive officerA/m Vennagudi Muniappan Tirukoil, salem https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 852 of 2021N.ANAND VENKATESH J.gdWP No. 852 of 2021 10-06-2025