High Court · 2025

WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batchBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTRESERVED ON19.12.2024PRONOUNCED ON 31.01.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD)No.2193 of 2024WMP.(MD).Nos.2208, 2210, 2211 & 21760 of 2024S.SelvaraniThe Managing Trustee,Arulmighu Muruga Ayyanar Temple,Veerakudi, Thiruchuzhi Taluk,Virudhunagar District. … Petitioner vs.1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar.5.V.Rakkavelar ... Respondents 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batchPRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, the Joint Commissioner dated 14.12.2023 in Na.Ka.No.3366/2023A1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to expedite and complete the enquiry initiated against the fifth respondent pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.01.2018 in Na.Ka.No.976/2012A1 and take further action for the failure to comply with the directions issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 21.06.2015 in Na.Ka.No.48093/2014/A2 within a reasonable time to be determined by this Court.For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip KumarFor Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj for RR1 to 4 Special Government Pleader: Mr.M.Jenis Mathew for R5 ORDERThe Writ Petition had been filed challenging impugned order passed by the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass order for the allegations as against the fifth respondent.2. Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Jenis Mathew, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batch3. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is managing trustee of Arulmighu Murga Iyyanar Temple at Veeragudi. The temple has been included in the list under Section 46 (ii) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act'). The fifth respondent herein was also recognised as one of the heriditary trustee and soon upon assumption of his office, the said respondent came to serious adverse notice and audit objections were raised against him. Hence, the proceedings under Section 90 (ii) of the HR&CE Act was initiated by proceedings dated 07.06.1999. Pursuant to the enquiry that had been conducted against him, on the various allegations made, the first respondent had placed the fifth respondent under suspension and by proceedings dated 21.06.2015 revoked the suspension, as the period of suspension would be treated as punishment. Having come to the conclusion that the charges 1 to 3 framed against the fifth respondent was proved and further directions were also issued to the fifth respondent for restoration of property in favour of the temple which had not been complied even as of today. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition under Section 114 of the Act and the same has also been pending consideration.3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batch4. On 06.12.2017, the second respondent herein referring to the orders of the Commissioner dated 21.06.2015 had directed the reinstatement of the fifth respondent as a heriditary trustee to the temple. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(MD).No.22820 of 2017 and by order dated 05.08.2022 this Court had held that the order passed by the first respondent dated 21.06.2015 was a conditional revocation of suspension but however refused to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent and had issued directions for identifying the properties of the temple by appointing a Special Officer in the rank of a Tahsildar.5. In the interrugnum, a fresh proceedings was initiated by the second respondent and addressed to the first respondent for initiation of disciplinary proceedings not only for violation of order of the first respondent dated 21.06.2015 but also to the other conduct of the fifth respondent in performing his duty as the heriditary trustee. He would submit that the said recommendation is also pending with the first respondent.4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batch6. While the matter stood thus, the fifth respondent seems to have made a representation with the second respondent to permit him to continue to function as a heriditary trustee inspite of objections submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent holding that there is no order prohibiting the fifth respondent from functioning as a heriditary trustee, had passed orders permitting the fifth respondent to function as a heriditary trustee. Being aggrieved against the same, she had filed the present Writ Petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent had been acting contrary to the interest of the temple and has also admittedly been in possession of the temple lands. In spite of directions given by the Commissioner in his order dated 21.06.2015, the fifth respondent had not complied with the directions and further the second respondent himself had made a recommendation to the first respondent to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings on the suggested charges and the same is also not proceeded any further by the first respondent.8. In such view of the matter, he would submit that it would be best in the interest of the temple that the fifth respondent ought not to be permitted 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batchto continue as a heriditary trustee of the temple. Therefore, he seeks interference of the order passed.9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents would submit that the fifth respondent was originally proceed with under the Provisions of the Act for his conduct and the first respondent by his order dated 21.06.2015 had held that the period of suspension itself would be treated as a punishment for the three charges proved against him and therefore, had revoked the order of suspension from the date of issue of the said order. He would further submit that certain directions had been given by the Commissioner in the said order. Since, there has been a violation of such directions, a recommendation had been made by the second respondent to the first respondent to further proceed against the fifth respondent and the same is pending consideration with the first respondent. There has been no prohibition by any order either under HR&CE Act or by this Court to keep the petitioner under suspension from performing his duty as a heriditary trustee of the temple. Therefore, he would submit that there is no infirmity in the order impugned herein.6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batch10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent would submit that the petitioner is enimical with the fifth respondent as he had not acceeded to certain of the request which are beneficial to the petitioner. He would contend that this Court in an earlier round of litigation even though, had held that the order of revocation was conditional had not interfered with the order of the second respondent permitting the fifth respondent to perform the functionings of a heriditary turstee in its order dated 06.12.2017 which was challenged in the said Writ Petition. He would therefore, submit that there is no impediment on the fifth respondent functioning as a heriditary trustee. Since, this Court had granted an interim order of the earlier order passed by the second respondent permitting the fifth respondent to continue as a heriditary trustee, the petitioner after disposal of the said Writ Petition had again approached the second respondent to permit him to continue as heriditary trustee which was considered in favour of the fifth respondent. Therefore, he would submit that there is no impediment for the fifth respondent in continuing as a heriditary trustee of the temple. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batch11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for their respective parties and perused the materials available on record.12. Admittedly, action had been initiated against the fifth respondent which came to be concluded by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.06.2015. A reading of the said order would show that for the proved three charges on certain conditions, the period of suspension was treated as punishment and the suspension was revoked from the date of the said order. There is an allegation that the fifth respondent had not complied with the conditions imposed by the first respondent. Even though, a Revision Petition had been filed by the petitioner against the said order, the same is also pending consideration with the appropriate authority. It is also to be noted that by proceedings dated 17.01.2018, the second respondent had sent a recommendation to the first respondent suggesting eight charges against the fifth respondent. The said recommendation also seems to have not been acted upon by the first respondent. Since, the order of revocation was made by the first respondent, the second respondent had originally issued an order permitting the fifth respondent to function as a heriditary 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batchtrustee which came to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.22820 of 2017 and the same came to be disposed of by issuing a direction for appointment a Special Officer to identify the temple properties to be recovered from the fifth respondent. However, this Court had given a categorical finding that it does not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent permitting the fifth respondent to continue to function as a heriditary trustee. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, an interim order of stay was made and therefore, the fifth respondent had not continued to function as a heridiatry trustee. However, after the disposal of the Writ Petition, he made a representation to the second respondent and after hearing both the fifth respondent and petitioner, the second respondent finding that there is no impediment for the fifth respondent to function as heriditary trustee had permitted him to function as a heriditary trustee. The same is challenged by the petitioner with a further direction to the first respondent to consider the recommendation made by the second respondent on 17.01.2018 and take action against the fifth respondent.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batch13. As rightly, pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, after the order of suspension revoked by the first respondent in his order dated 21.06.2015, there is no any further order by the authority suspending the fifth respondent from holding the post of heriditary trustee. In such view of the matter, I do not find any material error in the order impugned in this Writ Petition. However, considering the fact that a recommendation had been made by the second respondent to the first respondent as early as in the year 2018 suggesting specified charges against the fifth respondent and that the same is yet to be considered by the first respondent, this Court is of the view that a direction can be issued to the first respondent to consider such recommendation made by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 17.01.2018 within the time frame.14. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The challenge to the order dated 04.12.2023 is rejected. However, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to expidite the consideration of the recommendation made by the second respondent dated 17.01.2018 in Na.Ka.No.976/2012E1 and take appropriate decision within a period of 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batchtwelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 31.01.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking OrderNeutral Citation:Yes/NoGbaTo1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) Nos.2193 of 2024 etc batchK.KUMARESH BABU.,J.GbaA Pre-delivery order made in W.P.(MD)No.2193 of 2024WMP.(MD).Nos.2208, 2210, 2211 & 21760 of 202431.01.202512/12