V.R. SUYAMPRAKASAM, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the writ petitions challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.05.2016, the writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

(2.) W.P.(MD).No.10126 of 2016 has been filed by a Hereditary Trustee of one Arulmigu Suyampirakasa Easwar Thiru Kovil, Iluppagudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and W.P.(MD) No. 10888 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner who claims to have been elected as a non-hereditary trustee as per the scheme of administration of temple. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent appointing an Executive Officer for Arulmigu Suyampirakasa Eeswar Thiru Kovil, Iluppagudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

(3.) The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:- Arulmigu Suyampirakasa Eeswar temple is administered in terms of a scheme framed by this Court in APP. No. 492, 743 and 491 of 1951, dated 05.05.1954 and amended by Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, in OA. No. 44/1962 dated 21.11.1966, and Commissioner, HR & CE in AP. No. 71 of 1967. As per the scheme, the said temple have one hereditary trustee from A.R.L. family of Devakottai and two non-hereditary trustees appointed by the Area Committee, Ramanathapuram District, from among the non A.R.L. Illuppakudi Nagarathars of the 33 villagers owing allegiance to the temple. The said non-hereditary trustees shall hold office for five years from the date of their appointment. As per the scheme, the petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 10126 of 2016 has been appointed as hereditary trustee in the month of Aug., 2010 and two non hereditary trustees were earlier appointed to the temple and their period expired in the year 2013 itself. After expiry of their period as per the scheme a election was conducted and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 10888 of 2016 and one Ramanathan of Devakottai were elected as two non hereditary trustees to the temple on 09.05.2013, and the same was also forwarded to the second respondent/joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Sivagangai for approval, but so far their appointment was not approved by the second respondent and the same is still pending. In the mean time, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the hereditary trustee on 09.04.2012, pointing out as 24 defeats (sic) (defects) regarding mismanagement of the temple and directed the hereditary trustee and then non hereditary trustees to give their explanation why an Executive Officer should not be appointed invoking Sec. 45(1) of the T.N.HR & CE Act (hereinafter called as Act). After receipt of the above explanation, the hereditary trustee sent a detail reply on 03.05.2012 and non-hereditary trustees also sent their explanation on 09.05.2012. Thereafter, no enquiry was conducted and the matter was kept pending with the first respondent. In the meantime, by an order dated 19.05.2016, the hereditary trustee was suspended by the first respondent pending enquiry and third respondent was appointed as a fit person. Thereafter, within a period of one week, the impugned order has been passed appointing the third respondent as an Executive Officer for a period of five years or until further orders. Hence, challenging the above order the hereditary trustee filed W.P.(MD)No. 10126 of 2016, and the person who has been elected as non hereditary trustee, and waiting for approval from the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, filed W.P.(MD).No. 10888 of 2016.