B. RAJESHWARAN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 15.09.2014 passed in suo motu Revision No.1 of 2014 D2 by the first respondent and consequently to forbear the respondents from interfering with the rights of the petitioner to function as hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Bragadheeswarar Thirukoil, Peruvalanallur Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District.

(2.) The facts which led to the institution of this writ petition and which are essential for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that no doubt, in exercise of Section 21 of the Act, the first respondent has ample powers to modify or vary an order passed by the second respondent. However, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is contrary to Section 54 (1) and (2) of the Act. While Section 54 (1) of the Act contemplates filling up permanent vacancy in the office of the hereditary trustee by appointing a person who is next in the line of succession, Section 54 (2) contemplates that a temporary vacancy occurs in such office by reason of suspension of the hereditary trustee. In this case, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner's father was revoked and thereafter the petitioner's father has expressing his unwillingness to continue the hereditary trusteeship. Therefore, the petitioner, who is in the next line of succession, was appointed as a hereditary trustee in the place of his father. Such appointment of the petitioner was made in a permanent vacancy by reason of unwillingness expressed by the petitioner's father. In essence, the order appointing the petitioner is in compliance of Section 54 (1) of the Act and the observations made by the first respondent as if the second respondent ought to have appointed the petitioner in compliance with Section 54 (2) and not as contemplated under Section 54 (1) of the Act does not arise. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that when the permanent post held by the petitioner's father became vacant, the second respondent is justified in appointing the petitioner in adherence to Section 54 (1) of the Act. In such a situation, the first respondent erred in holding that the vacancy arose due to the unwillingness expressed by the petitioner's father has to be construed as a temporary vacancy. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed this Court to allow this writ petition as prayed for.