R.KULANDAIVELU Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT VELLORE VELLORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order made in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.6362/2015/E1 dtd. 27/8/2015 passed by the first respondent and the order in Na.Ka.No.804/2014/A2 dtd. 30/9/2015 passed by the second respondent, quash them and consequently direct the second respondent to pass an order approving the petitioners' names as the Non-Hereditary Trustees as per the Resolution dtd. 18/5/2014 passed by Thindaimandala Athi Saiva Vellalas of Kadambathur Village in compliance with the Scheme dtd. 21/12/2003 made in O.A.No.14 of 1996 passed by the first respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that a scheme was settled in respect of the Arulmigu Thirupurasundari Sametha Arulmigu Muktheeswarar temple in Kadambatur Village at Tiruvallur District and as per the scheme, the temple affairs shall be administered by the Board of Trustees comprising not less than 3 and not more than five in number to be appointed by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959 (Amended Act 39 of 1956) and as amended from to time and rules made thereunder. The period of trustees will commence from the date of elections of managing trustee, or the Chairman, Board of Trustees as the case may be. As per the scheme, the temple has been administered by the Non-Hereditary Trustees, wherein, the second respondent sent a communication in Na.Ka.No.1803/2014/Aa2 dtd. 5/1/2015 seeking the Inspector, HR and CE Department to submit a report. The Inspector filed a report as if the temple is administered by the petitioner 1 to 3 herein. The first respondent by the impugned order has appointed the third respondent-Executive Officer as the fit person to the subject temple and the same is challenged solely on the ground that when the temple was administered by the petitioners/Non hereditary trustees, the third respondent/Executive Officer cannot be appointed as a fit person.

(3.) It is the contention on the side of the Respondent Department that when the temple is presently administered by the fit persons, one R.Kulandaivelu, S.Nallathambi being the petitioners 1 and 2 along with one Arunachalam who were appointed as the Non-hereditary trustees, they are illegally been in the office beyond the period allowed as per the Scheme and the Act. Post the demise of the above said Arunachalam on 23/4/2014, who is one of the non-hereditary trustee, a new Board of Trustees has to be constituted. Accordingly, the Inspector, HR and CE Department was appointed for obtaining the report and inspection were conducted and a report was submitted to the second respondent citing various discrepancies and deficiencies in the administration of temple. Hence, the first respondent passed the impugned order appointing the third respondent-Executive Officer as the fit person. Based on that order, the third respondent-Executive Officer is functioning as the fit person of the temple taking care of the collection of rents, lease of temple lands for public auction till date. Hence, oppose this writ petition.