V.R. MUTHURAMAN POOSARI Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN POOSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUTHURAMAN Poosari, the Petitioner herein was the Managing Trustee of Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, of Irukkargudi village in Sattur Taluk, of Ramanathapuram District. Besides various irregularities in the administration he had committed several acts of misappropriation in respect of the Temple funds. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments at Madurai, initiated proceedings against him and placed him under suspension under Section 53 of the H.R. and C.E. Act. By his order d. 7th February 1972, he appointed the Respondent herein as a fit person to take charge of the Temple with records and accounts and to manage its affairs pending enquiry into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. On the basis of this order, the Respondent moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sathur, under Section 101 of the Act for taking delivery of the Temple, the accounts and the records. The Petitioner resisted this application stating that the charges levelled against him were frivolous, that the suspension order was mala fide and that the petition by the Respondent alone without the other trustees as Petitioners is not maintainable and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed in limine. Overruling his objections, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has ordered delivery of the Temple its accounts, records and funds. The correctness of this order is canvassed in this revision.

(2.) THIRU B. Sriramulu, learned Counsel, who appears for the Petitioner contends that the application filed by the Respondent alone without the other trustees as Petitioners is not maintainable and for this position, be relies upon two Bench decisions of this Court, viz., (1) Commissioner H.R. and C.E. v. Sethurama Pillai : 1960 (1) M.L.J. 157 : 73 L.W. 326 and (2) Angappan v. Commissioner H.R. & C.E., 1965 M.L.J. (1) 151 :, 77 L.W. 604. Therefore, the point for determination in this revision is as to whether any application under Section 101 of the Act filed by a fit person appointed under Clause (4) of Section 53 of the Act alone, without the other trustees as Petitioners therein is maintainable. Section 101 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) SECTION 53 of the Act confers upon the Dy. Commissioner powers to suspend, remove or dismiss trustees for any of the reasons mentioned in Sub -clause (a) to (k) of Clause 2 of this Section. Under Clause (4) of the Section, pending enquiry into the charges, he can place a trustee under suspension and appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and perform the functions of a trustee. Such a trustee comes within the purview of Section 101 of the Act. The intention of this Section is to provide and set up a machinery by which a person appointed as a trustee or Executive Officer of a religious institution, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, may promptly obtain possession of the properties and records of the temple from the ex -trustees or Temple servants or then refractory persons, if they are resisted o; prevented form obtaining such possession peacefully. The purpose underlying the power of suspension conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner by Section 53 of the Act is that in appropriate cases, the interests of the Temple should not be jeopardised by allowing a person who has been found to have committed acts which would endanger the interests of the temple, to continue and the authorities are entitled to see that the temple is looked after properly during the period when the charges levelled against such a trustee are under enquiry. Prompt action in such cases is called for and that is why the Section enables the immediate appointment of a fit person, to perform the functions of a trustee pending the enquiry.