V. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the third respondent in Che.Mu.Na.Ka. 2955/2011/Aa2 dated 10.8.2011. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims to be a hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Sridevi Pudhiya Palayathamman Kovil. In the year 1918, the paternal grand father of the petitioner, Mr. Sri Thiruvenkata Pillai, was administering the affairs of the temple. After the demise of his paternal grandfather Mr. Sri Thiruvenkata Pillai, his brother Sri Veerasamy Pillai was administering the temple affairs. After the lifetime of his grandfather, petitioner's father Sri V. Venkatesa Pillai, succeeded the office of the Trustee and administered the affairs of the temple. After the demise of his father on 12.9.1995, the office of the trustee of the temple vested with the petitioner, both by succession and usage, and since then he has been in the administration of the temple. All the festivals during the year are being conducted properly, in particular Aadi festival. So also the daily poojas.

(2.) THE petitioner along with his brother Durairaj, filed an application before the HR & CE Administrative Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34, for the appointment of hereditary trustee in O.A. No. 8 of 2012 and the same is pending. While so, the fourth respondent, the Executive Officer tried to disturb the peaceful functioning of the Aadi function for the year 2012 and informed that he was removed from the post of trustee. Regarding the alleged removal from the post of Trustee, there was no notice nor any enquiry conducted nor any order served on him. He saw the orders, only when a suit was filed against him and his deceased brother in O.S. No. 615 of 2012 and an order of injunction was obtained in I.A. No. 1430 of 2012 before the Principle District Munsif, Alandur on 23.8.2012. Only then the petitioner was aware of the interference by the Department in the administration.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent. While denying the averments made in the petition, in the counter -affidavit, the fourth respondent would state that from 8.10.2011, the temple is being administered by the fit person appointed by the third respondent. That the petitioner is in the habit of creating troubles at the time of Aadi festival. Neither the petitioner nor his forefathers had maintained any statement of accounts pertaining to the income and expenditure of the temple. Further, neither the petitioner nor his forefathers were appointed as trustees to the temple by the department at any point of time and they only proclaimed themselves as trustee or hereditary trustee to the temple. In the year 2012, the petitioner and his brother filed a petition under Section 63(b) of the HR & CE Act, before the second respondent for appointing them as Hereditary Trustee and it is still pending. Therefore, due to periodical complaints received by the authorities about the mismanagement and mal -administration of the temple affairs, they were put in the necessity of appointing a fit person, as early as 10.8.2011 to protect the temple. Hence, the appointment made by the department, appointing a fit person is neither illegal nor irregular, warranting interference by this Court and therefore they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.