R.RAJA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, both these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The writ proceedings pertain to the management and affairs of Arulmighu Azhagiya Nachiyamman Udaiyaprattiyamman, Keelavegupatti, Arulmighu Veguliamman (Vahaiyara), Thirukkoil, Ponnamaravathi, Pudhukkottai District. It is seen from the records that the temple has been included in the list published under Clause 2 of Section 46 of the Tamil Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959. The temple is under hereditary management. One Ramasamy Ambalam was the hereditary trustee. Following his demise, his legal representative Thiru.R.Raja was recorded as hereditary trustee. Thiru.P.L.Muthaiah, Ponnamaravathi submitted a complaint alleging misappropriation and mismanagement on the part of the said Raja. Thereupon, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Trichy issued an order dated 14.04.2018 suspending Thiru.Raja and directed the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Muthumariamman Kovil, Konnaiyur as the fit person of the said temple. Thiru.Raja was directed to hand over the charge to the newly appointed fit person. This order was challenged by Thiru.Raja in WP(MD)No.8861 of 2018. It is seen that interim stay was originally granted. To vacate the same, Thiru.P.L.Muthaiah/the complainant had filed a petition. While so, during one of the hearings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reported "no instructions". Therefore, interim stay got vacated. In the meanwhile, the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Muthumariamman Kovil, Konnaiyur directed Thiru.Raja to hand over the charge vide communication dated 18.06.2020. This was put to challenge by Thiru.Raja in WP(MD)No.7278 of 2020. Since the impugned order in WP(MD)No.7278 of 2020 is only consequential to the order dated 14.04.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Trichy, I was of the view that both the writ petitions should be heard together. They are accordingly heard together.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the issue regarding jurisdiction was not pleaded in the first writ petition. But, he claims that it was raised during the course of arguments and that is why, this Court had granted interim order in the first instance. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for HR&CE was fair enough to admit that the temple in question is included in the list published under Section 46(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act , 1959. In fact, this is clear from the opening paragraph of the order dated 14.04.2018. When the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Trichirappalli herself would concede in the order dated 14.04.2018 that the temple in question is included in the list published under Section 46(ii) of the Act, obviously, the competent authority to pass an order of suspension will only be the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Section 53(1) of the Act reads as follows :