AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—Petitioner, the Executive Officer of Sri Brihadiswarar Temple, Gangaikoda Cholapuram, has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from conducting auction to grant licence to collect fees for keeping the foot-wear in repository and also to grant license to collect fees for parking of the vehicles including cycle which came to Sri Brihadeeswarar Temple, Gangaikonda Cholapuram. The case of the petitioner is that the said temple is an ancient one. The same is notified as protected monument by the Archaeological survey of India. Now the first respondent is trying to auction the right to collect fees for keeping the foot -wear in repository and for the parking of the vehicles. The respondents are entitled to maintain the temple, being the monument notified under the said Act. So far as the collection of the fees is concerned, only the Endowment Board is having the authority and the respondents have no authority especially when the monument had not been acquired u/s 13 of the said Act. Hence the writ petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the temple has been admittedly notified under the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Once it is notified under the said Act, the respondents are having the entire control over the maintenance of the building and no other person is entitled to have any control over the area. So far as the Endowment Department is concerned, they can have the control only with regard to the administration of the temple and more than that they cannot claim anything. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Moreover, it is further stated that so far as the collection of the fees is concerned, the respondents are sharing a portion with the hereditary trustee of the Big temple, since the Devasthanam is maintaining more than 80 temples. Hence the petitioner has no right to challenge the action of the respondents.
Both the counsel reiterated what is stated in the affidavit as well as in the counter.
There is no dispute that the Big temple had been notified under the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Once such notification is issued, Section 6 of the said Act contemplates the signing of an agreement between the Central Government and the owner of the place. Naturally such an agreement might have been executed by trustees of the temple for the maintenance of the place, Section 14 of the said Act empowers the Central Government to maintain every monument which has been acquired u/s 13 or in respect of which any of the rights mentioned in Section 5 have been acquired.
In this case by virtue of the notification, the right u/s 5 was acquired by the Central Government and as such the maintenance of the temple vests with the same. It is not the contention of the petitioner also that the maintenance of the temple vests with him. Section 15 of the said Act empowers the Director General to receive the voluntary contributions towards the costs of maintaining the protected monument. The power vested u/s 15 to receive the Voluntary contribution reveals that the respondents are entitled to receive the funds and to maintain the temple.
If the petitioner''s contention that the respondents are having control over the maintenance of the notified monument and they are not entitled to collect anything is to be accepted, then it will amount to make the provision i.e.., Section 15 nugatory.
When once it is made clear that if any notification is made under the said Act, notifying the vesting of the Big temple as a national monument, the respondents alone have got the authority to maintain the entire area. The trustees as well as the Endowment Board will have the control only with regard to the administration of the temple alone i.e., with regard to the Pooja, the jewels of the temple, the control of the employees of the temple etc. Hence the petitioner''s claim that the Endowment Board alone will have the right to collect the fees cannot be accepted.
Apart from this, the petitioner being the Executive Officer of the temple, it is not made clear as to how he is entitled to file this writ petition without the concurrence of the trustees. Normally the Executive Officers are appointed u/s 45 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to have the control of the administration of the temple alone i.e., the jewels of the deity, the cash receipts and expenses.
When it is stated by the respondents that a portion of the collection of the fee is shared with the trustees to meet the expenses of the other temples, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no independent right to challenge the action of the respondents in calling for the tenders to issue licence to collect the charges for keeping the footwear in repository and for the parking of the vehicles. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed.