AYIRA VYSYA JAGADGURU Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER/COMMISSIONER THE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A clamorous unrest erupted as a result of an awesome rift between a Madathipathi and a group of Disciples/Trustees of a Mutt called Thiru Alangadu Immudi Aghora Dharmasivachariya Ayira Vysya Mutt (in the course of this Judgment shortly referred to as "Vysya Mutt") over the administration of the Mutt and its properties, with the respective individuals emulously vituperating each other of certain mean-spirited misdoings, ultimately has led to filing of the present writ petitions, of which, three petitions viz., W.P. Nos.14032, 17160 and 23762 have been respectively filed by the Madithipathi, (a) for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the office of the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR &CE) Department (Administration), Erode, relating to the Notification, dated 21.04.2008, published in Tamil Daily 'Thina Thanthi", dated 26.04.2008, and subsequently modified by his Notification dated 29.04.2008, published in the same Newspaper on 01.05.2008, to conduct the election to the Board of Trustees of the Vysya Mutt, to be held on 22.06.2008, and to quash the same; (b) for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Special Commissioner / Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department, Chennai-34, to hand over the entire administration of the Vysya Mutt, to the petitioner in the capacity as the Madathipathi and Trustee of the Mutt, forthwith; and (c) for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pursuant to the order in the proceedings of the first respondent, the Special Commissioner / Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department, bearing Na. Ka. No.86545/04/S.2/1, dated 20.06.2007, appointing the 2nd respondent-the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Dept., Erode, as Election Officer to conduct the election to the office of Trustees in the Vysya Mutt, and to quash the same;, while the other writ petition in W.P. No.10031 of 2010 has been filed by one D.S.Muthusamy Chettiyar, claiming to be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Vysya Mutt, "for the issuance a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent/Commissioner of the HR & CE Board in regard to proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.8834/2010/S.2-1, dated 29.04.2010, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner's Committee of Trustees to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Mutt".

(2.) SINCE the core issue regarding correctness or otherwise of the impugned proceedings of the HR & CE Board to conduct election to the Board of Trustees of the Mutt by the Board itself and to retain with it the management of the Mutt till devolving the administration to the de jure authority, and the allied issue relating to the rival claims of the Madathipathi and the Board of Trustees seeking to hand over the administration of the Mutt, require common consideration, all the writ petitions are heard together and given joint disposal by this Common Judgment.

(3.) M/s.V.Shanmugam and V.Subramanian, learned counsels appearing for the respondents/committee members and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the Chairman of the Mutt/petitioner in W.P. No.10031 of 2010 would, in their fierce criticism on the conduct of the petitioner-Madathiapthi, submit that the entire community and the well-wishers of the Mutt have lost their faith in the Head of the Mutt as he never interested in the welfare and development of the Mutt but concentrated only on the worldly gains. According to them, from the series of litigations launched at his hands against the committee of the Mutt, it could be seen that he would always concentrate on temporal affairs and usually seek for repayment of the money alleged to have been spent by him and complain non-payment. In that background, one can easily study his intention in seeking modification or annulment of scheme itself, by virtue of which alone he came to be selected as Madathipathi, as the scheme, while dealing with the income of the mutt and disbursal, in vivid and unambiguous terms, provides in clause 13 that no person other than the Executive Officer or the Chairman as the case may be shall be entitled to receive the income of the Mutt or make any disbursement thereof. Looking at any perspective, no justification whatsoever can be found in the claim of the petitioner/Madathipathi for stalling the election process and seeking instant handing over of the administration of the Mutt, therefore, it is prayed that the writ petitions filed by the Madathipathi may be dismissed with costs. Consequently, Mr.Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the Chairman of the Committee/petitioner in W.P. No.10031 of 2010, pleaded to allow the committee to manage the affairs of the mutt even as a care-taking unit until the issue is settled through the outcome of the election process.