P. Sundaramurthy, V. Sekar and G. Hemanathan vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and The Executive Officer

P. Sathasivam, J.—The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.7.2001 made in W.P. No. 827 of 2001

on the file of this Court, in and by which the learned Judge permitted the petitioners to make an application u/s 54(4) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act""), and if any such application/petition is made, directed the

appropriate authority to dispose of the same in accordance with law and on merits.

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that it is not necessary to refer all the factual details as narrated by both the

parties. It is the case of the petitioners/ appellants that they are the legal heirs of the original hereditary trustee, by name, Vaithialinga Odayan, their

great grandfather. In the proceedings dated 25.11.2000, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE), after

finding that out of five trustees, three persons, namely, (i) Gnanasundara Thambiran, (ii) Palani Thambiran and (iii) Rajarathina Thambiran are dead,

removed other two trustees; Ayyavoo and Vinayagam Thambiaran from hereditary trusteeship. While passing the said order, the Joint

Commissioner, HR & CE. has also appointed the Thakkar of the said temple as Fit Person to maintain the administration of the temple. It is the

grievance of the petitioners/appellants that inasmuch as they are the legal heirs of the hereditary trustees, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, ought

not to have appointed a Fit Person and on the other hand, he ought to have recognised and appointed them as hereditary trustees of the temple in

question.

Learned Single Judge, in the light of section 54 of the Act and the procedure to be followed while filling up the vacancy in the Office of

hereditary trustee, permitted the petitioners/appellants to make an application u/s 54 of the Act with a direction to the Joint Commissioner, HR &

CE to consider the same. By giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE for appointing them as hereditary

trustees of the temple, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.

We verified the relevant provision, namely, section 54 of the Act. We have already referred to the fact that except Ayyavoo and Vinayagam

who were removed from the trusteeship, others are dead. In such circumstances, as rightly observed by the learned Judge that as the petitioners

claim that they are the legal heirs of the then hereditary trustees, it is for them to file an application giving all the required details. The Explanation to

sub section (3) of section 54 of the Act makes it clear that it is for the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE or the Deputy Commissioner to consider the

claim of the members of the family regarding succession to the office of hereditary trustee. In the light of the statutory provision, we are of the view

that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge cannot be faulted with. However, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellant,

inasmuch as the petitioners were continuing in the office of hereditary trustee, there is no need to appoint a Fit Person for the administration of the

temple. In support of his claim, learned senior counsel brought to our notice the order of this Court made in W.P. No. 5742 of 1 991 dated

9.8.1999. In the said order, the learned Judge, while directing the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE., Chennai to complete the enquiry

proceedings, in view of the interim order passed in W.M.P. No. 880 0 of 1991, permitted the petitioners to continue the administration of the

temple till a final decision is taken.

It is also brought to our notice that during the pendency of the present writ petition as well as the writ appeal, the petitioners secured an order of

stay of the proceedings of Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, dated 25.11.2000 and by virtue of the said order, the petitioners herein are

administering the temple.

In the light of what is stated above, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, and the petitioners/ appellants are permitted to

make an application u/s 54 of the Act highlighting their claim. They are granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to

make application and if such application is made, the second respondent/Joint commissioner, HR & CE., Chennai is directed to consider the claim

of the petitioners as well as other eligible members of the family, if any, who are entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee by succession

and pass orders within a period of three months thereafter. Till such final orders being passed, in view of the earlier direction of this Court made in

W.P. No. 5742 of 1991 dated 9.8.1999 as well as interim orders made during the pendency of the writ petition as well as writ appeal, the

petitioners/appellants are permitted to continue the administration of the temple. It is made clear that if there is any complaint against the petitioners

in the administration of temple, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE is free to take appropriate action against them.

The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.