SAMBAMURTHY GURUKKAL Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the matter in controversy in this writ petition can be disposed of on a preliminary ground regarding jurisdiction, it is sufficient to state briefly such facts as are necessary for that purpose. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Purathanavaneswarar Temple, Thiruchitrambalam, Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District. It is common ground that a scheme framed by the former Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, as modified in O.S. No. 38 of 1949 on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore, continues to be applicable to the affairs of the temple. That scheme contains a clause, which is to the following effect:

(2.) RELYING on this provision, on 18th September, 1962, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Thanjavur, appointed one Kandswami as the Executive Officer of the temple. The petitioner field a revision petition aggrieved against that order to the Commissioner who rejected the petition by an order dated 2nd August, 1963. A subsequent revision to the State Government was also dismissed. The petitioner has, the thereafter, come to this Court by filing this writ petition and seeks for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders mentioned above. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of an Executive Officer substantially diminishes his powers to manage the temple, and that such an appointment ought not to have been made in this case, without prier notice to the hereditary trustee, when no specific allegations had been made that he had mismanaged the affairs of the temple and that the interests of the temple required the appointment of an Executive Officer. As against this contention, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents urges that Clause 6 of the scheme above extracted gives the necessary power for the appointment of an Executive Officer, that the trustee is bound by the provisions of the scheme, and that therefore he cannot insist upon, prior notice before an Executive Officer is appointed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to certain observations of the Supreme Court in the decision in S.D.G. Pandarasannadhi v. Madras State : [1965] 2 SCR 934 at 1687. The Supreme Court observed, with reference to certain powers conferred on the Executive Officer to be appointed under a proposed modification of a pre -existing scheme and which was dealt with in that decision:

(3.) BUT it has to be borne in mind that in the present case, the Executive Officer was not appointed under Section 45 of the aforesaid Act. When it was urged before the Commissioner in the revision petition filed before him by the petitioner herein, that it was the Commissioner who was empowered to appoint an Executive Officer and not the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner met the objection by observing that in the present case the appointment was made by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of Clause 6 of the scheme and, therefore, the objection that he had no power to make such appointment under Section 45 of the Act would not hold good. So it is clear that the respondents have treated the appointment of the Executive Officer in this case as one made in pursuance of Clause 6 of the scheme aforesaid. Consequently, it is unnecessary to apply to the interpretation to Section 45 of the Act given by the learned Judges in the two writ petitions stated above.