M. JAGATHALAPRADAPAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the eighth respondent and to protect the fifth respondent Mutt, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 29.09.2017 and 04.10.2017 and to permanently prevent the eighth respondent from interfering with the fifth respondent Mutt by an appropriate order by this court.

(2.) The facts of the case, as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, are as follows: 2. 1 According to the petitioner, he is the founder Trustee of 'Madurai Meenakshi Childrens Trust' and involved in various social and religious activities. He is the follower and worshipper of 292nd Madathipathi of the fifth respondent Mutt, the sixth respondent herein and the Junior Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam Mutt/seventh respondent herein. 2. 2 Apprehending that the eighth respondent, namely Nithyananda @ Rajasekar, who is claiming to be the Head of Bhidathi Ashram, Karnataka, is trying to trespass into the Adheenam Mutt, despite the orders of this Court, thereby, attempting to swindle the funds of the Mutt and to capture the properties and temples attached thereto, the petitioner has submitted representations on 29.09.2017 and 04.10.2017, before the official respondents for necessary action and because of their inaction, he is before this Court.

(3.) The sum and substance as well as the arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows: 3. 1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute arose in the year 2012 pursuant to the appointment made by the sixth respondent/292nd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt, declaring the eighth respondent, a stranger to the mutt, as his successor/293rd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt, without following the due process of customs and practices and execution of a Deed of Trust with the eighth respondent to administer, manage, control and supervise the Madurai Adheenam. Aggrieved over the same, religious institutions as well as Madathipathis of several Adheenam Mutts have filed various petitions, including W.P.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 and W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court, after a detailed and elaborate discussion, by order dated 31.10.2012, observed that the 8th respondent is no more the pontiff of the 5th respondent and on account of removal of the eighth respondent from the position of 293rd Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam on 20.10.2012, pending disposal of these petitions, this Court itself directed the parties to adhere the civil proceedings pending and subsequently, the sixth respondent has also lodged a complaint as against the eighth respondent. Challenging the said removal, the eighth respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.85 of 2013 and the same is pending. 3. 2 Prior to the disposal of W.P.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 and W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, has filed a suit in O.S.No.1000 of 2012, challenging the appointment of the eighth respondent as 293rd Madathipathi and the 'Deed of Trust' dated 23.04.2012 as well as to remove the sixth respondent from the Mutt. In the said suit, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.966 of 2012 has been filed, wherein, by order dated 26.04.2013, the lower Court has stayed the operation of the Deed of Trust dated 23.04.2012 as well as the appointment of eighth respondent. 3. 3 Aggrieved by the order of interim stay, the eighth respondent has preferred a civil revision petition in C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2013 and this Court, by order dated 19.08.2014, has dismissed the petition, holding that as per Section 6(13) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act and also as per the scheme framed by this Court, while a Madathipathi is alive, another Madathipathi cannot be appointed. 3. 4 While things stood thus, the eighth respondent, with an ulterior motive to create problems, once again, attempted to enter into the premises of Madurai Aadheenam so as to cause hindrance to the Mutt and usurp the properties of the Mutt. Moving one step ahead, the eighth respondent, suppressing the earlier orders, has filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.13323 of 2017, seeking police protection, so as to enter the Mutt premises, in his capacity as 293rd Madathipathi which is per se illegal. 3. 5 Among other things, the main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the management of the traditional Mutt shall never be handed over to the eighth respondent, who has a criminal background and is a habitual offender. In order to prove that the eighth respondent is a habitual offender, having involved in sexual abuse, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the controversial video clippings released in the year 2010, portraying his intimacy with an actress. Though the eighth respondent claims that such video was a morphing one using the advancement of technology, the said plea was negatived by the report submitted by Forensic Science Lab, Delhi. The learned counsel for the petitioner also narrated the details of the complaints lodged against the eighth respondent, by his own disciples, including one Aarthi Rao. Reliance was also made on the imposition of sentence and imprisonment for 20 years by the Courts of law on Gurmeet Ram Singh, a self proclaimed Godman, for his alleged involvement of sexual abuse like that of the eighth respondent. 3. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that based on the illegal trust deed dated 12.04.2012, the petitioner has given a complaint against the eighth respondent. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the eighth respondent is unknown to principles of Saivism. The learned counsel further submitted that the eighth respondent is attempting to take over the Madurai Adheenam, claiming to be the 293rd Pontiff and attempted to meddle with the activities of the mutt. The learned counsel, during the course of oral arguments and also in the written arguments, submitted that for one to even become a Thambiran, he must be a saivite and get various Deeksha's from the Gurumahasannidanam of the particular mutt and only then he can become a Thambiran and therefore, the appointment of the eighth respondent as Junior Pontiff/293rd Pontiff is illegal. Further, it was contended that one can easily be identified by his name as to which religion/sub clause of the religion he belongs to The Saiva Sanyasys will bear the names of Nayanmars, Acharyars, SamayAchariyars and the name of Lord Siva, Muruga, Ganesa etc., The name suffixed with 'ANANDA' denotes the person belongs to 'Vedanta' philosophy and the Saiva Sithandha philosophy. The name NithyANANDA simply identifies the 8th Respondent as the vedanthi and the saiva Sithandhi and no way connected to the Madurai Adheenam and its Philosophy. 3. 7 It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eighth respondent is basically functioning from Karnataka and from Madurai. Therefore, he could never have performed the duties of Tamibran. Also, the illegal affidavit of appointment of the sixth respondent, which is now disputed by him and the statement of the eighth respondent before various forums including this Court in Crl.O.P (M.D) 13323/2017 at paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 10, 12 and 13, where he claimed to be the 293rd pontiff clearly proves that all along the eighth respondent has taken a claim only as the 293rd pontiff and a junior pontiff and it is only for the purpose of this case, a different stand is taken. 3. 8 It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Madathipathi of one mutt cannot head another mutt and the 8th Respondent is admittedly a religious head of Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam having its entire function at Bidadi, Karnataka and he still continues to be the Guru and religious Head of his own styled Mutt which is having different philosophy, tenets, culture and practice under the name and style of Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam. Even after his appointment, he is celebrating and continuing his religious performance in his own style Mutt and celebrated Guru Poornima at his Ashram and giving initiation (Dheekcha) to his Sishyas in his own styled Mutt. In his counter affidavit, the 8th respondent stated that he has personally initiated more than 1 lakh persons across Tamil Nadu into Shiva Deeksha (Samaya Deeksha). Even assuming he is a junior pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam, it is illegal for him to initiate Deeksha to anybody, when 292nd Ponditff is alive. This statement of the 8th respondent itself is sufficient to prove that he being polluting the sanctity of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt and its philosophy. The tenets and philosophy of his own styled Ashram called Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam is entirely different from the philosophy of Madurai Adheenam. 3. 9 It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the eighth respondent had renounced the world and become an ascetic under the 6th respondent, then he ought to have continuously stayed in the Madurai mutt and having renounced his stature as a guru, he ought to have surrendered all the properties belonging to his self styled Ashram and must have transferred the same to the Madurai Adheenam Mutt, but on the contrary, by creation of an illegal trust, the properties of Madurai Adheenam were planned to be vested with the eighth respondent. 3. 10 The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to an order in I.A.No.348/2015 in O.S.No.90/2015, where the eighth respondent had staked a claim as the head of different mutts, thereby pointing out that he is an habitual mutt grabber. It was also contented that the role of the sixth respondent is only limited to the observance and development of Saivite Philosophies, but also the properties worth thousands of Crores of Rupees are to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'HR and CE Act') and therefore, when no action is taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner as an ardent devotee for Thirugnanasambandar and a persuasion towards Saivism and particularly Madurai Adheenam Mutt, had filed the writ petition, which is maintainable as the same falls within the realm of Section 6 (17) and 6 (18) of the Act and even according to the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P (MD) Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 and W.P (MD) No.8260 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in V. Thiagarajan, President, Hindu Baktha Jana Sabai v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (1) CWC 22] . 3. 11 Aggrieved by the illegal attempts of the 8th respondent, the petitioner is before this Court and it is his specific contention that when the order of appointment of the eighth respondent as 293rd Madathipathi is stayed by the lower Court, which was upheld by this Court and moreover, the said appointment letter itself was revoked by the sixth respondent by letter dated 20.10.2012, the act of the eighth respondent in introducing himself as 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam/Successor to the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam is highly illegal.