AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.—This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of the first respondent made in his proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka. No. 1866/2013/A4, dated 14.06.2013 which was received by the petitioner Society on 20.06.2013, in and by which, the second respondent was appointed as a ''Fit Person'' to the temple Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil, Poriyalar Nagar, Madurai - 625014, which is under the Management and administration of the petitioner Society and quash the same. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is as follows:
1.1. The petitioner Sangam registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, in the year 2013, has been established to manage and administer the temple, namely, Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukovil, situated at Poriyalar Nagar, Madurai. The petitioner has been elected as the President of the Sangam. The temple has no immovable properties and there is no income from any other source. The members of the petitioner Sangam incurred the expenditure for performing daily poojas and other festivals, which, is maintained by proper accounts.
1.2. The application filed under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (in short ''the Act''), is pending before the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madurai. A ''Hundial'' has also been installed by the first respondent and is under his control. The same has been opened on 03.10.2012 in the presence of the officials of the first respondent and the amount collected was deposited in a bank account.
1.3. When that being so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 02.04.2013, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why a ''Fit Person'' should not be appointed to the said temple, as the petitioner did not maintain proper accounts and in the interest of the devotees. The petitioner also submitted his reply dated 15.04.2013 to the same. However, the first respondent passed an order dated 26.04.2013, appointing the second respondent as the ''Fit Person'' to the said temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 8044 of 2013 before this Court, wherein, this Court directed the first respondent to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and kept in abeyance the impugned order, until fresh orders are passed.
1.4. Thereafter, on 06.06.2013, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and submitted his explanation. While so, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 14.06.2013, appointing the second respondent as the ''Fit Person'' of the said temple. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
The third respondent filed the counter affidavit, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner that the petitioner and the other members of the Sangam did not maintain any register for the income of the temple and the gold and silver articles of the temple were not verified and valued by the officials of the H.R. & C.E. Department and even without their permission, the ornaments were melted and that the accounts of the temple are not audited and they did not issue any receipt for the amounts collected for ''Mappillai Azhaippu''. Further, the third respondent contended that since there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 21-A of the Act, the present writ petition is not maintainable in law and prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
Mr. V. Sitharanjandas, learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
3.1. The petitioner Sangam has been established only to administer the said temple and it has been duly registered as per law.
3.2. The petitioner Sangam has moved before the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Department, under Section 64(1) of the Act to frame a scheme for the said temple and it is still pending.
3.3. While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to appoint a Fit Person to the temple, so as to regularise the management and administration of the temple and the petitioner also submitted the reply to the same, however, the Fit Person was appointed.
3.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 8044 of 2013 before this Court and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for re-consideration, but, the first respondent passed the very same order, without taking note of the stand of the petitioner.
3.5. The impugned order has been passed in a hurried manner, by which, the veracity of the same could be seen and hence, it has been passed with an mala fide intention to defeat the object of the petitioner Sangam.
3.6. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order.
Though notice has been taken on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, till date, no counter affidavit is filed by them.
Whereas Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, made the following submissions:
5.1. The first respondent has initiated action based on the allegations levelled against the petitioner as to the irregularities committed in administering the temple and on receipt of the reports received from the authorities concerned, the first respondent issued the show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon his explanation for appointing a Fit Person to the temple.
5.2. After giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order, appointing the Fit Person in the interest of the welfare of the temple as well as the devotees.
5.3. The appointment of the Fit Person is only by way of an interim measure, until the committee of hereditary trustees is appointed as per law and the proper directions were given to the Fit Person to obtain prior permission for monthly expenses of the temple.
5.4. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
Reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, Mr. S. Madhavan, learned Counsel for the third respondent contended thus:
6.1. Though the petitioner Sangam has been established with an object to administer the temple, the petitioner Sangam failed to maintain proper records and the officials of the H.R. & C.E. Department did not verify the income of the temple and also the jewels were melted without obtaining the permission of the authorities concerned.
6.2. No records whatsoever, had been maintained by the petitioner to ensure transparency in the administration of the temple.
6.3. Based on the allegations against the petitioner alone, the first respondent initiated action against him, by issuing the show cause notice and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case and hence, he could not plead violation of principles of natural justice.
6.4. Moreover, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 21-A of the Act, as against the impugned order and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
On 21.06.2013, this Court, while granting the order of interim stay, has observed as under:
"Mr. T.R. Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 returnable by 10.07.2013.
It is seen from the records that the impugned order is passed on 14.06.2013 and posted on 18.06.2013. The petitioner''s contention is that he was served yesterday i.e., 20.06.2013, and today morning, the respondents tried to take the possession of the temple. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity to go through the order and to approach the Court if he is aggrieved.
By virtue of the impugned order, definitely, the petitioner''s right would have been affected. Without giving any proper time, hurriedly, the respondents are trying to take the possession of the temple.
Therefore, there shall be an order of interim stay as prayed for until further orders.
Post on 28.06.2013."
A close reading of the impugned order would show that the first respondent has appointed the Fit Person to the said temple, assigning the following reasons:
(i) No register was maintained for the income as well as the jewels of the temple.
(ii) The jewels of the temple were not properly valued by the authorities concerned.
(iii) No prior permission was obtained for melting the jewels of the temple.
(iv) The petitioner collected the amounts from the individuals against the law.
(v) No audit has been done regarding the administration of the temple.
(vi) No amount was fixed for ''Mappillai Azhaippu'' and they have collected the excess amounts.
(vii) No tender was called for conducting the festivals.
(viii) Considering the monthly income of the temple as well as taking into account the allegations as against the petitioner Sangam, the first respondent decided to appoint a Fit Person to the said temple.
No doubt, the first respondent has considered all the aspects regarding the administration of the temple by the petitioner Sangam and passed the impugned order, in and by which, a Fit Person was appointed to administer the management of the temple.
However, this Court finds it appropriate to point out that in an earlier occasion, the first respondent has passed the similar order for appointment of the Fit Person and that was challenged before this Court in W.P(MD) No. 8044 of 2013 and while this Court, disposing of the same, by order dated 08.05.2013, refrained from setting aside the impugned order, however, directed the first respondent to keep the same in abeyance and further, observed thus:
"5. In such a view of the matter, without setting aside the impugned order, the first respondent is directed to keep the impugned order abeyance and the petitioner shall appear before the first respondent along with the reply dated 15.04.2013, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the reply, the first respondent shall afford opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Until fresh orders are passed as indicated above, the ''Fit Person'' shall not take charge. It is needless to state that it is open to the petitioner to raise all contentions, which have been raised before this Court, before the first respondent."
At this juncture, this Court is not in a position to understand as to why the first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit in support of the impugned order so far and in the absence of the same, this Court has to analyse the issue with the available materials on record.
It is crystal clear that the petitioner Sangam mainly challenged the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed in a hurried way and the Fit Person was directed to take charge of the administration of the temple forthwith. Considering the same, this Court granted the order of interim stay of the impugned order, until further orders and till today, it is in force.
At this juncture, this Court finds that in an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 8044 of 2013 seeking the same relief alleging that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order appointing the Fit Person to the temple concerned and this Court, by order dated 08.05.2013, without quashing the order impugned therein, directed the authorities concerned to afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders and till such time, the ''Fit Person'' shall not be permitted to take charge of the post of Fit Person.
What are all the circumstances which led the first respondent to pass the impugned order, is only in the interest of the temple, by initiating action against the alleged mismanagement committed by the petitioner Sangam.
Admittedly, the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 8044 of 2013, dated 08.05.2013, which became final as it had not been put to challenge by filing any appeal, would enable the Fit Person to take charge of the temple as and when fresh orders are passed by the first respondent and once the first respondent has passed fresh orders as directed, the Fit Person can assume the charge and there can be no impediment in that regard.
It is also seen that as per the earlier order of this Court, the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing and thereafter, fresh order has been passed by the first respondent appointing the Fit Person, aggrieved against which, the present writ petition is filed, on the same grounds, however, this Court is of the view that the same is not tenable in law, for, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available under Section 21-A of the Act itself and without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner is repeatedly approaching this Court to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to Section 21-A of the Act, for ready reference:
"21-A. Powers of Joint or Deputy Commissioner to call for records and pass orders. - (1) The Joint or Deputy Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any Assistant Commissioner, in respect off any proceeding under this Act (not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided by this Act), to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein.
(2) If, any such decision or order has been passed by any Assistant Commissioner and it appears to the Joint or Deputy Commissioner that the decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly.
(3) The Joint or Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party under sub-section (2) without hearing him or giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4) The Joint or Deputy Commissioner may stay the execution of any decision or order of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) in respect thereof.
(5) Every application to the Joint or Deputy Commissioner for the exercise of his powers under this section shall be preferred within three months from the date on which the decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant."
A plain reading of the above provision would make it apparent that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the authority concerned, to challenge the order passed by the first respondent and in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition lacks merit.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the authority concerned as per Section 21-A of the Act, in the manner known to law. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2013 is dismissed and M.P.(MD) Nos. 2 of 2013 and 1 of 2014, are closed. No costs.
After pronouncement of the above order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court that till the petitioner avails the remedy under Section 21-A of the Act before the authority concerned, the benefit of interim order granted by this Court may be extended to the petitioner.
Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side. Considering the nature of the prayer sought for by the petitioner, there shall be an order of status quo as on date, till 31.08.2015.