Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, K.Shanmugavel Mudaliar, S.Kaaviya Laxmy, and S.Kumarasamy, filed two writ petitions before the Madras High Court challenging orders passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Kanchipuram. In W.P.No.14190 of 2024, they sought to quash an order dated 19.03.2024 appointing the 4th respondent as Executive Officer of Agastheeswarar Temple and to restore possession and management of the temples to them as hereditary trustees. In W.P.No.36565 of 2024, they sought a declaration that the order dated 28.05.2024 appointing the 3rd respondent as Fit Person for Ranganatha Perumal Temple and the continuance of the 4th respondent as Executive Officer were illegal and violative of a Supreme Court judgment and the Executive Officers Appointment Rules, 2015. The petitioners claimed to be hereditary trustees of the temples and alleged that the respondents had illegally sealed the temples and appointed outsiders. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader and Government Advocate, argued that the appointments were made in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and that the petitioners had not established their hereditary trusteeship through any statutory declaration. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 45, 47, and 63, and noted that the petitioners had not obtained any order under Section 63 recognizing them as hereditary trustees. The court also observed that the writ of declaration sought was not maintainable as the petitioners had alternative remedies under the Act. The court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the appointments were valid and the petitioners' claims were unsubstantiated.
Headnote
A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments - Hereditary Trusteeship - Section 63 of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 - The petitioners claimed to be hereditary trustees of the temples but failed to produce any order or declaration under Section 63 recognizing them as such. The court held that mere claim without statutory recognition does not entitle them to management. (Paras 10-15) B) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments - Appointment of Executive Officer - Sections 45 and 47 of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 - The appointment of the 4th respondent as Executive Officer was made by the Joint Commissioner under Section 45(1) and the Fit Person under Section 47(1). The court found that the appointments were in accordance with the Act and Rules, and the petitioners' challenge based on the Supreme Court judgment was misconceived. (Paras 16-22) C) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court held that a Writ of Declaration is not maintainable when the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, such as filing a suit or appeal before the appropriate authorities. The writ petitions were dismissed on this ground as well. (Paras 23-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders appointing the 4th respondent as Executive Officer and the 3rd respondent as Fit Person are illegal and violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Rules, and whether the petitioners are entitled to restoration of temple administration as hereditary trustees.
Final Decision
The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the impugned orders were valid and the petitioners had not established their claim as hereditary trustees. The court found no merit in the petitions and declined to grant any relief.
Law Points
- Hereditary trusteeship must be established through proper proceedings under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act
- Appointment of Executive Officer and Fit Person under Sections 45 and 47 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act is valid if done in accordance with rules
- Writ of Declaration not maintainable when alternative remedy available under the Act
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus requires clear violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice.
