M.RAJAMANIKKAM DHARMAKARTHA ARULMIGU SITHATHUR AMMAN KOIL SENGAMANDI VILLAGE CHEIYYAR TALUK Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in order passed in Ni.Mu.No.42026/2012/E4 dtd. 14/9/2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the consequential order in Na.Ka.No.1697 /2012/A1 dtd. 6/12/2012 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same and all further proceedings done in furtherance thereof and direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with the worship and administration of the petitioner temple by the public's representatives.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the temple was in existence for more than 100 years and the temple is being worshiped by the people surrounding the place and people throughout the State visits the temple. Since the temple building was deteriorated, the devotees have decided to construct new Mandapam and Gopuram for the temple and resurrected the temple. Since there was no Hundi in temple, the temple is managed by the public and the members selected by the public and the temple does not come under the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. The temple was given patta for the lands and electricity connection and the same is paid in the name of temple Dharmakartha. When that being the case, the respondent officials visited the temple without causing any notice to the petitioner temple and found that there was no Hundi and the affairs of the temple are being managed by the public. Thereafter, the 6th respondent registered a Trust Deed as if the temple is owned by his family and it is his family property. When the public came to know about the fraudulent registration of the Trust Deed in his favour, the 6th respondent voluntarily cancelled the Trust Deed. The petitioner temple is vigilant about the fraudulent acts and taking care of the temple affairs for the benefit of the public.

(3.) When that being the position, the petitioner temple was shocked to receive the pamphlet of the respondent Board taking over the temple. The petitioner temple was neither served with any notice nor furnished with a copy of such order. The respondent Board has issued such pamphlets without following due procedures contemplated under law. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Suit in O.S.No.66 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cheiyyar and the same was withdrawn. During the course of the civil suit, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent's order dtd. 14/9/2012 (Impugned Order) has listed the petitioner temple within the purview of the Board, based on a report of the 4th respondent dtd. 3/6/2012. Neither the order dtd. 14/9/2012 nor the report dtd. 3/6/2012 was served on the petitioner temple. Hence, challenging the impugned order which was passed without any enquiry and no opportunity was also given to the petitioner temple, the present writ petition is filed.