AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—The writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.04.2005 made in
interlocutory applications.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the writ appeals can be disposed off at this stage.
The appellant/petitioner challenged the election of the third respondent, who was elected as the Hereditary Trustee of the temple in question and
the consequential recognition by the second respondent, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Administration Department, Sivaganga, which was
upheld by the first respondent, the Commissioner of HR & CE, Administration Department.
In our opinion the writ petition itself was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and hence, it should not have been
entertained at all.
It may be noted that all orders of the Commissioner can be challenged before the State Government u/s 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner admits that there is such an alternative remedy. Hence, in our opinion, the appellant/petitioner should
have availed of that remedy. Of course, it is open to the third respondent to contest before the State Government that section 114 of the Hindu
Religious Charitable Endowments Act is not attracted. Even if Section 114 of the Act is not attracted, the general remedy by filing a suit to
challenge the election and the consequential order is available to the petitioner.
In our opinion, the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner is only a consequential order granting recognition to the election of the third
respondent as the Hereditary Trustee.
In view of the fact that alternative remedy is available to the appellant/petitioner, the appeals as well as the writ petition are liable to be dismissed
and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMPs. No. 3336 to 3338 of 2005 are dismissed.