H.H. PERARULALA ETHIRAJA RAMANUJA JEER Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and same, namely H.H. Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeer. The Administration of the temples of Sri Adikesavaperumal and Sri Bashyakaraswami in Sriperumbudur together with all the shrines attached thereto is governed by a scheme settled by the Sub Court of Chingleput in C S. No. 30 of 1921. In I.A. No. 448 of 1922 by an order dated 3rd January, 1923 certain scheme rules were framed pursuant to the scheme. Cl. 6 of the scheme stated that there shall be two Dharmakarthas appointed to manage the affairs of the Devasthanam, and they be appointed by the Court. Cl. 7 provides that ordinarily one Dharmakarta shall be in charge of the religious affairs of the Devasthanam exclusively devoting himself to and vested with the sole right to superintend, regulate and control all the religious and ceremonial matters and having control of all the servants and employees directly rendering or aiding in the religious services and all matters of internal discipline in the Devasthanam, and in all its shrines consistently with the provision in the schedule of establishment and rules of Court in that matter as provided in rule 54. Cl. 8 of the scheme dealt with the other Dharmakartha who shall be a secular Dharmakartha in primary charge of Devasthanam office records, accounts and establishment and outdoor establishment and shall superintend, regulate and control all members of the said establishment consistently with the provisions in the schedule of establishment and rules of court in that matter as provided in rule 54. Cl. 10 of the scheme provided that the Court shall ordinarily appoint the Head for the time being of the Ethiraja Jeer Mutt own his application as the religious Dharmakartha provided he is over 18 years of age and is not subject to any of the disqualification declared for Dharmakartha by rule 21 and such religious Dharmakartha shall hold office so long as he continues to be head of the said Mutt. It is unnecessary to refer to the other clauses in the scheme as far as the present writ petitions are concerned. The Court has given reasons as to why it preferred the nomenclature "Dharmakartha" to the nomenclature "trustee" and why it provided for the division of labour as between the religious Dharmakartha and the secular Dharmakartha. On 10th October, 1939, a notification was issued under S. 65 -A of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927. In view of this notification, the scheme ceased to apply to the temples in question. Subsequently, it is admitted that the notification issued on 10th October, 1939 ceased to operate by efflux of time on and from 16th July, 1966. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed an application where after the ceasing of the operation of a Notification dated 10th October, 1939, issued under S. 65 -A of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1927 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department requesting that he may be recognised under Cl. 3 of the Scheme rules and appointed as religious Dharmakartha of the temples in question and necessary instructions be issued to the trustee and the Executive Officer of the temples so as to enable him to discharge the duties under the terms of the scheme. On 7th July 1967 the Commissioner dismissed the application. According to the Commissioner, the petitioner was not entitled to be the religious Dharmakarta of the temples. The primary basis for this conclusion of the Commissioner was that after the lapse of the notification issued under Sec. 65 -A of Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1967, the scheme originally framed by the Sub Court, Chingleput did not revive. It is as against this order of the Commissioner that the petitioner preferred writ Petition No. 3711 of 1967 on the file of this Court. That writ Petition was allowed by Kailasam, J. on 24th January 1969. The learned Judge held that on the lapse of the notification by efflux of time, the scheme framed by the Sub Court revived. Against this judgment of Kailasam, J. the Commissioner preferred a writ appeal, the Judgment in which has been reported in Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. v/s. H.H. Perarulala Ramanuja Jeer, 1973 II M.L.J. 17;, 36 L.W. 444. The learned Judges agreed with the conclusion of Kailasam, J. that on the expiry of the notification on 16th July 1966, the scheme framed by the Sub Court, Chingleput revived. However, with reference to an argument advanced before the Court that the provisions of the scheme were not consistent with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, the Bench pointed out as follows: - -

(2.) It is pursuant to this judgment, the Commissioner passed the impugned order on 1st December 1973. By the impugned order, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the provisions contained in the scheme for appointment of religious and secular Dharmakarta are inconsistent with the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 for appointment of trustees, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be recognised and appointed as the religious Dharmakarta within the scope of the scheme. It is to quash this order of the Commissioner, Writ Petition No. 704 of 1974 has been filed.

(3.) On the basis of this order dated 1st December 1973, the Commissioner appointed non -hereditary trustees by his order dated 28th March 1974. To quash that order, Writ Petition No. 955 of 1974 has been preferred.