V ARIYAMUTHU Vs. DISTRICT TEMPLE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, son of the 3rd respondent hereditary trustee (under suspension) has filed the present writ petition, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No.17108/93 A3, dated 17.3.1995 to quash the same and for directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as fit person to Arulmigu Sri Loga Prakasa Moorthy and Alagia Manavala Perumal temples in the temporary vacancy caused on the suspension of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THERE is no controversy with respect to the factual aspects of the matter in the present writ petition. The short facts are as Set out here under: The 3rd respondent had already been declared as hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Sri Loga Prakasa Moorthy and Alagia Manavala Perumal Temples in O.A. No.119 of 1975 passed under Sec.53(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 on 17.3.1976. On 14.2.1994 by exercising the power conferred under Sec.53(4) of the Act, the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension pending disposal of the charges framed against the 3rd respondent by the 1 st respondent. According to the petitioner, he had made representation on 22.2.1994 to appoint him as fit person in the vacancy caused consequent to the suspension of the 3rd respondent hereditary trustee. The said trustee had challenged the order of suspension by preferring appeal before the Commissioner H.R & C.E. in A.P. No.9 of 1994 after due consideration, the Commissioner, the appellate authority by proceedings dated 27.10.1994 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of suspension. On 17.3.1995, the 1st respondent had appointed the 2nd respondent Executive Officer of Arulmigu Madanagopalaswami temple Perambalur as the Fit person in exercise of power conferred under Sec.53(4) of the Act. At this stage, the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who is the son of the 3rd respondent. It is pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent is guilty of serious misconduct with respect to assets and properties of the temple in question and there was every justification to place the 3rd respondent under suspension. It was also pointed by the learned Special Government Pleader that as the 3rd respondent is the father of the petitioner, who has been placed under suspension and at this stage, it is not also in the interest of institution to appoint the petitioner as Fit person as according to the instructions, the petitioner had assisted the 3rd respondent in the alienation of temple properties without the permission of the H.R & C.E. Department.

(3.) WHEN Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.53 provides for appointment of a fit person, as already held above, the provisions of Sec.54(l) and (2) cannot be relied upon nor it could be pressed into service. In my considered view, as no vacancy had arisen it is not for the first respondent to pass order under Sub-sec.(l) or (2) of Sec.54. As of present the writ petitioner has no right at all. WHEN it is found that the statute provides that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner and no other manner is permissible. In this case Sec.53 provides for filling up vacancy either temporary or permanent in the office of the hereditary trustee and such a contingency provided for in Sec.53 cannot be road into Sec.54. It has been held in Martin Burn Limited v. Calcutta Corporation, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 529 as follows: "A result following a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect. WHEN the statute does not enable the petitioner in terms of Sec.53(4) for being appointed as a fit person in contra to distinction to Sec.54 of the Act. In my considered view, the request of the petitioner need not be considered as there is no vacancy as the 3rd respondent had been merely placed under suspension under Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.53.