Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a registered society representing Thriswathanthirargal (Sthalathars) claiming denominational rights to perform Thirumeni Kavalpani rituals in Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Tiruchendur. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, which set aside an earlier order dated 12.11.2012 that permitted the petitioner’s members to conduct the rituals. The background involved a recommendation by a Fit Person in 2012, approved by the Executive Officer, but later questioned by one S.Ayyappan. The Commissioner, in revision proceedings, directed a suo-motu enquiry under Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act. Pursuant to that, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction, especially since a civil suit (O.S.No.151 of 2017) was pending for declaration of rights. The respondents argued that the order was appealable under Section 69 of the Act, and the writ petition was not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy. The Court, relying on a previous decision in W.P.No.1088 of 2023, held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal to the Commissioner under Section 69, followed by a suit under Section 70, and a further appeal to the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court did not go into the merits of the ritual rights or the validity of the enquiry. The decision rested solely on the availability of a statutory appeal mechanism, reaffirming the principle that writ jurisdiction is barred when an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Sections 69, 70 - Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable when effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal to Commissioner under Section 69 and subsequent suit under Section 70 is available. Held that petitioner must first avail statutory remedies before approaching High Court. (Paras 16-17)
B) HR&CE Act - Enquiry Powers - Section 63(e) - Orders passed under Section 63(e) are appealable under Section 69, and any person aggrieved can also file a suit under Section 70. The existence of a pending civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the statutory authority to conduct enquiry. (Paras 4-5, 15-16)
C) Temples - Religious Rituals - Thirumeni Kavalpani - Rights claimed by denominational community based on religious texts and Agamas are subject to statutory regulation under HR&CE Act. The Act provides comprehensive mechanism for determination of such rights. (Paras 7-8, 14)
D) HR&CE Act - Fit Person - Section 42 - The recommendation of a Fit Person who is also a member of the petitioner Sabha was accepted by the Executive Officer but not approved by the Commissioner. The Commissioner directed suo-motu enquiry to examine the correctness of the order. (Paras 6, 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the impugned order passed under Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act, 1959 is appealable under Section 69 of the same Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to availability of an effective alternative remedy of appeal to the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR&CE Act, 1959, followed by a suit under Section 70. The Court did not examine the merits of the ritual rights claim.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Alternative remedy under Sections 69 and 70 of HR&CE Act bars writ jurisdiction
- Writ petition not maintainable when statutory appeal to Commissioner and suit to civil court available
- Enquiry under Section 63(e) is appealable
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (06) 182
R.Singaravelan, D.Selvanayagam, Veerakathiravan, P.Subbaraj, M.Muthuseethayan
Sri Subramaniyya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Parabalana Sthalathar Sabha, Rep by its Secretary, S.Muthukrishnan Ayyar
State of Tamil Nadu, The Commissioner HR&CE Department, The Regional Joint Commissioner HR&CE Department, The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, The Board of Trustees Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, S.Ayyappan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of Regional Joint Commissioner setting aside an earlier order that permitted members of a sabha to perform certain temple rituals.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (Sri Subramaniyya Swamy Thirukoil Swathanthira Parabalana Sthalathar Sabha) sought quashing of order dated 29.05.2024 in O.A.No.35 of 2021.
Filing Reason
The order dated 29.05.2024 set aside the order dated 12.11.2012 which allowed the petitioner's members to perform Thirumeni Kavalpani rituals; the petitioner claimed rights recognized by religious texts and Agamas.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner directed suo-motu enquiry under Section 63(e) on 08.01.2019. The fit person's recommendation was approved by the Executive Officer in 2012 but not by the Commissioner. A pending civil suit O.S.No.151 of 2017 in Sub Court, Tiruchendur for declaration of denominational rights.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 69 of the HR&CE Act, 1959 is available.
Whether the Regional Joint Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 63(e) while civil suit O.S.No.151 of 2017 is pending.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned proceeding is without jurisdiction, Section 42 is not relevant, and the matter is sub judice in O.S.No.151/2017. The rights of Thriswathanthirargal are recognized in religious texts and Agamas.
Respondents contended that the order is appealable under Section 69 and effective alternative remedy exists. The fit person's recommendation was not approved by the Commissioner, and writ is not maintainable as per precedent.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable when an effective alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 69 of the HR&CE Act, 1959, followed by a suit under Section 70, is available. The existence of a parallel pending civil suit does not oust the statutory appeal mechanism.
Judgment Excerpts
The Impugned Order dated 29.05.2024 has been passed under Section 63(e) of the HR & CE Act, 1959 and is an appelable Order in terms of Section 69 of the HR & CE Act, 1959.
When effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party before hierarchy of Courts including this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to by-pass the alternative remedy available under the Act and rush to this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
Petitioner Sabha registered in 1996. Fit Person recommended allowing Sabha members to perform Thirumeni Kavalpani rituals, approved by Executive Officer on 12.11.2012. S.Ayyappan filed A.P.No.3 of 2015 before Joint Commissioner under Section 55(4) challenging the approval; order dated 06.03.2017. Ayyappan filed Revision Petition R.P.No.320 of 2017-D2 under Section 69 before Commissioner. Commissioner by order dated 08.01.2019 directed suo-motu enquiry under Section 63(e). Regional Joint Commissioner passed impugned order dated 29.05.2024 in O.A.No.35 of 2021 setting aside the 12.11.2012 order. Petitioner filed present writ. Petitioner also had civil suit O.S.No.151 of 2017 pending for declaration of rights.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Section 42, Section 55(4), Section 63(c), Section 63(e), Section 69, Section 70, Section 116(2)
- Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975:
