Case Note & Summary
The present writ appeal was filed by Thenmugam Vellodu Moonrukarai Sathanthai Kulamakkal Sangam, a society, against an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by a single judge in W.P.No.265 of 2024. The dispute involved the freezing of the appellant's bank account maintained with Indian Overseas Bank. The appellant contended that the account was frozen without affording any opportunity of hearing and that the Sangam merely collected subscriptions from its members through bank transactions, not misusing the name of any temple. It was claimed that no cash was received from devotees. The respondents, which included authorities from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, argued that a prima facie investigation revealed illegal collection of money from devotees by affixing the name board of the appellant/Sangam in the name of the temple. Photographs annexed to the appeal allegedly showed improper collections. The single judge had dismissed the writ petition without, according to the appellant, considering the ground of violation of natural justice. At the hearing of the writ appeal, both sides advanced their submissions, but the provided text does not contain the final order or reasoning of the division bench. Consequently, the court's decision, ratio decidendi, and issues of law remain unknown from the supplied excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 235
W.A.No.280 of 2025 and CMP.Nos.2125 & 2130 of 2025
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
Mr. Avinash Wadhwani for appellant; Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4
Thenmugam Vellodu Moonrukarai Sathanthai Kulamakkal Sangam, Represented by its President, K.Somasundaram
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department; 2. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department; 3. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department; 4. The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Chellandiamman Koil; 5. The Bank Manager, Indian Overseas Bank
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against a single judge order in a writ petition challenging the freezing of the appellant's bank account and alleged illegal collections.
Remedy Sought
To set aside the order dated 25.09.2024 in W.P.No.265 of 2024 and seek a direction to unfreeze the bank account or conduct an enquiry after affording an opportunity to the appellant.
Filing Reason
The appellant's bank account was frozen by authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing, and the single judge dismissed the writ petition without considering the violation of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The single judge of the Madras High Court passed an order on 25.09.2024 in W.P.No.265 of 2024, the details of which are not provided.
Submissions/Arguments
For appellant: The bank account was frozen without affording any opportunity; the Sangam collected only subscriptions from its members through bank transactions, not misusing the temple name; no cash was received from devotees; the authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity; the single judge did not consider this ground.
For respondents: The competent authorities prima facie found illegal collection of money from devotees by affixing the name board of the appellant/Sangam in the name of the temple; the photographs enclosed by the appellant would reveal that collections are made improperly from the devotees visiting the temple.
Judgment Excerpts
Under assail is the order dated 25.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.265 of 2024.
the competent Authorities prima facie found that there is an illegal collection of money from the devotees of the temple by affixing the name board of the appellant/Sangam
The learned single Judge has not considered the said ground and thus the present writ appeal came to be instituted.
Procedural History
The appellant filed W.P.No.265 of 2024 before a single judge of the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 25.09.2024. Subsequently, the appellant filed the present writ appeal (W.A.No.280 of 2025) along with CMP.Nos.2125 & 2130 of 2025. The matter was heard on 05.02.2025 by a division bench, but the final order is not included in the provided text.
