M.SARAVANAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.Shanmugam, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. M.Maharaja, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Fourth Respondents and Mr. R.Bharanitharan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fifth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) Since the facts involved in both Writ Petitions are same and they are inextricably connected with each other, they have been heard together and are disposed by this common order.

(3.) One A.Kokila was selling pooja items in the western side of the entrance of Arulmighu Sri Muthukumarswamy Devasthanam, Rasapa Chetty Street, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple' for brevity and convenience) and had been paying the rent collected by the Trustees of the Temple for that purpose. The Fifth Respondent, viz., the Assistant Commissioner appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as 'the HR & CE Department' for brevity and convenience), who was appointed as Fit Person to administer the affairs of the Temple in the place of the Board of Trustees, by notice dated 09.06.2014 issued to the said A.Kokila terminated the lease for the portion occupied by her in the entrance of the Temple as it was required for the use of the Temple and she was called upon to vacate from there within a period of 15 days from its receipt. Another notice dated 27.06.2014 was issued by the Fifth Respondent informing the said A.Kokila that since she had not vacated the portion occupied by her despite lapse of 15 days from 11.06.2014 when she acknowledged the receipt of the earlier notice dated 09.06.2014, she has been treated as 'encroacher' in terms of the explanation to Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TN HR & CE Act'for brevity and convenience), and that action for her eviction therefrom would follow in due course. Proceedings were then initiated against the said A.Kokila under Section 78 of the TN HR & CE Act before the Third Respondent, viz., the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, for evicting her from the space occupied by her of an extent of 135.63 sq.ft. in the western side of the entrance of the Temple. Accordingly, considering her objections and affording opportunity of personal hearing to her, the Third Respondent by order dated 30.09.2015 directed the said A.Kokila to vacate from the premises of the Temple, which was occupied by her, and it was also informed that in the event of her failure to comply within 15 days, the Fifth Respondent was required to carry out the eviction in accordance with Section 79(1) of the TN HR & CE Act. The said A.Kokila preferred Revision Petition under Section 21 of the TN HR & CE Act against that order before the Second Respondent, viz., the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, in which after examining all her contentions raised, by order dated 08.02.2016 that Revision Petition was dismissed with a condition that the space shall be utilized for common purpose and it would not be leased out or rented out to any person in future.