MUTHIAH Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2009, passed by the second respondent under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. (herein after referred to as 'the HR and CE Act').

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is a non hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Manjanikootha Ayyanar, Arulmigy Muthaiya Swamy, Arulmigu Sonaiah Temple, which is situated at Survey No. 203/01, Thirukkostiyur Village. According to the petitioner, the said temple was founded by the petitioner's ancestors. It is the case of the petitioner that his ancestors were doing poojas and managing the temple for a very long time. According to the petitioner, the management of the temple is vested with the petitioner's ancestors ever since its establishment. According to the petitioner, there was an attempt by the second respondent for the appointment of non hereditary trustee in the year 1993, which was also objected by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, communication was received from the second respondent calling upon him to move the first respondent under Section 63(b) of the HR and CE Act to declare the petitioner as hereditary trustee. According to the petitioner the District Committee of Temple Administration Board by proceedings dated 25.05.1995, appointed the petitioner as non hereditary trustee for the aforesaid temple. Further, it is his case that again on 03.12.1997, the second respondent passed an order appointing the petitioner as non hereditary trustee to the temple, pursuant to the resolution passed by the District Committee, dated 03.12.1997. According to the petitioner, he is the authorised person to operate the Savings Bank Account maintained by the Temple.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that a suit was filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.92 of 2004, before the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, since there was some interference by Sivagangai Devasthanam. It is also the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was a party in the said suit, which was filed before the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment, management and administration of the temple. According to the petitioner, even before the filing of the suit, an application in O.A.No.21 of 2003 was filed by the petitioner along with one Madhavan, before the first respondent claiming hereditary trusteeship of the temple under Section 63 (b) of the HR and CE Act. According to the petitioner, the said application was dismissed by the first respondent granting liberty to the petitioner to file a petition, after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2004. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner of HR and CE, Chennai.