M R SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the validity of Ordinance 3 of 1996, known as Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1996 is challenged. After we reserved these cases for judgment, the Ordinance 3 of 1996 came to be replaced by Act 23 of 1996. Therefore, these cases were directed to be posted for "being spoken to", in order to ascertain from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, as to whether they have got any additional arguments to be advanced. Accordingly, these cases were posted before the Court on 10.12.1996. On that date, both sides submitted that there were no additional arguments to be advanced on the validity of Act 23 of 1996, as the arguments advanced on the validity of Ordinance 3 of 1996 would equally apply to the validity of Act 23 of 1996 also. Both the sides submitted that the writ petitions be treated as challenging the Act also. We recorded the submissions made by both sides on 10.12.1996 and passed the following order: "These matters were heard and reserved for judgment, when the Ordinance 3 of 1996 was in force. Now the Ordinance 3 of 1996 has been replaced by Act 23 of 1996, which is operative from the date when the ordinance was issued. Under these circumstances, these appeals and the writ petitions came to be posted for "being spoken to" so that the very validity of the Act can be considered. Learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents submit that as the arguments on the validity of Ordinance and the Act are the same, inasmuch as the Act is nothing but replacing of the Ordinance, the appeals and the writ petitions may be treated as challenging the Act also. We accordingly proceed to consider the validity of the Act also." Therefore, we proceed to determine the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 23 of 1996"). 1.. Writ Appeal Nos.668 and 671 of 1996 and Writ Petition Nos. 10111, 10113, 10133, 10332, 10180, 10618, 10846, 10901, 10920, 11141 10832, and 11250 of 1996 are covered by a scheme framed by the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). W.P.Nos.10216, 10623, 10664, 10150, 10939 and 10546 of 1996 are cases in which the trustees were appointed by the Temple Administration committee. W.P. No. 10735 of 1996, which is a community temple, is covered by an order under Sec.64 (1) of the Act. IN this matter, Second Appeal No.896 of 1994 is pending in this Court. W.P.Nos.11310 and 11311 of 1996 are covered by Civil Court decrees.

(2.) BY one stroke, the Government of Tamil Nadu has removed all the hereditary and non-hereditary trustees of the various temples in the State of Tamil Nadu on the only ground that there being discontent in the minds of the general public about the functioning of the trustees and has directed appointment of Fit Persons in the place of the existing incumbents irrespective of the fact whether the terms of the incumbent had expired or was subsisting. The validity of this legislative action of the State is challenged in these matters. Therefore, all the writ appeals and the writ petitions have been heard together since common question in all of them is the validity of Act 23 of 1996, which has replaced the Ordinance 3 of 1996.

(3.) W.A. No.671 of 1996 is preferred against the order in W.M.P. No.13315 of 1996 in W.P. No.10113 of 1996. Since the main W.P. No.10113 of 1996 itself is taken up for hearing, we feel that it is unnecessary for us to dear with this writ appeal, which is filed against the interim order. It is claimed that Sri Anjaneyaswami Temple alias Mukkiapuranaswami Devasthanam, Gobichettipalayam, is a denominational temple within the meaning of Art.26 of the Constitution of India read with Sec.51, proviso to Sec.64(l) and Sec.107 of the Act, and has been in existence for the sole benefits of persons belonging to Madhva Community who are permanently residing in Gobichettipalayam Town. A statutory scheme was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Coimbatore in O.A. No.130 of 1975 under Sec.64 (1) of the Act and the petitioner/ appellant was appointed as Fit Person till the constitution of a regular Trust Board for the denominational temple. Thereupon, the District Committee, H.R. & C.E. Department, Coimbatore, has appointed the petitioner/appellant and two others as trustees on the basis of the provisions of the scheme framed in O.A.No.130 of 1975 dated 15.7.1977. The petitioner was elected as the Chairman, Board of Trustees and his period will come to an end during September, 1996. It is contended that Act 23 of 1996 which has replaced Ordinance 3 of 1996 is not applicable to denominational temples where the statutory schemes are framed by the authorities under the provisions of the Act and that the action of the Department is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The scheme provides that the temple and its endowments shall be administered by a Board of Trustees not less than three and not more than five in number to be appointed by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The trustees so appointed shall hold office for a period of five years. The appropriate authority shall appoint trustees for the temple from among the members of Madhva Community. The writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Coimbatore, in Na.Ka.No.7104.96/A3, dated 4.7.1996 in appointing the Inspector, H.R. & C.E. Department, Gobichettipalayam, as a Fit Person for the temple in question under Sec.2(l) of Ordinance 3 of 1996, now Act 23 of 1996.