Full Judgment
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent's impugned order in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4323/2011/Aa2 dated 27.03.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful administration of the Yadhava Trust to conduct temple poojas in Arulmighu Navaneethakrishnan and Chakkarathalvar Thirukkoil, Tallakulam, Madurai city administered by the Yadhava Trust and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the above circumstances.)
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is one K.Jayaselan S/o A.Krishnankonar. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department in short, HR and CE Department dated 27.03.2012. After setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the peaceful administration of the Yadhava Trust, which is formed to conduct the Temple Poojas in Arulmigu Navaneethakrishnan and Chakkarathalvar Thirukkoil, Tallakulam, Madurai City.
2. When the Writ Petition came up on 10.04.2012, this Court while ordering notice for admission, granted an interim stay of the impugned order. It also held that there was no necessity to grant any interim injunction separately and that application was closed. Subsequent to the admission, the Fit Person was appointed by the respondent, HR and CE Department filed an impleading application in M.P.(MD) No. 4 of 2012 and that was ordered by this Court on 08.06.2012. One M.Selvakumar, S/oMathusuthanan also filed an impleading application to implead himself as a respondent and that was also ordered by this Court on 26.04.2012. The said Selvakumar who was impleaded as the fourth respondent has filed an application to vacate the interim order in M.P.No.5 of 2012. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed an counter affidavit dated 08.06.2012 and the fifth respondent/Thakkar has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.06.2012.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The case of the petitioner was that his father and other members belonging to Yadhava Community founded and established the Temple in the year 1965. The Temple is situated in Government Poramboke land. One Mathusuthanam the father of the fourth respondent transferred the "B" Memo of the 5 1/2 cents temple land in his own name with an intention to grab the temple. Therefore, the petitioner's father lodged a complaint and thereafter,the "B" Memos were issued in his name. The members of the Yadhava Community are worshiping in the said temple and Yadhava Sabhai has been registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and it was decided to form a Trust. On 30.11.2011 they formed a Trust wherein the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Trustee.
5. However, the fourth respondent with a view to disturb the management of the temple had filed O.A.No.24 of 2011 under Section 64(1) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1950 for framing a scheme appointing Trustees to manage the temple. Another petition was filed as O.A.No.25 of 2011 under Section 63(A) to declare the said temple as a public temple and both O.As are pending before the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department the second respondent.
6. At this juncture, it was recommended to bring the temple under the control the commissioner, HR and CE Department by proceedings dated 19.03.2012 considering the welfare of the temple approved for bringing the temple under the control of the Department. Thereafter, an explanation was called for from the Office bearers of the temple for appointment of Thakkar as per the Provisions of Section 49(1) of Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act. In the meanwhile, there has been difference of opinion between the two groups in the Community ending up in criminal complaints lodged with the police and the temple was also locked and daily poojas were not conducted. Therefore, by a proceedings dated 22.03.2012, a Fit Person was appointed. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Madhanagopalasami Temple was made as the fit person, who is the fifth respondent herein. Initially, the petitioner resisted handing over the charge to the Fit Person. The Fit Person had taken charge on 09.04.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner himself had agreed to hand over the charge. When the petitioner made a representation dated 27.03.2012 seeking for cancellation of the Fit Person handing over the management to the Trust, the impugned order came to be passed. By the impugned order dated 27.03.2012 the petitioner was informed that the Trust unless produced the document to the satisfaction of the Department and got appropriate orders from the Department, the question of handing over the management of the temple to the Trustees will not arise and this order is under challenge.
7. In the present circumstance, there is no denial that Hindial was put up and monies were collected from the public. One of the person filed an application before the Department in O.A.No.24 of 2011 and O.A.No. 25 of 2011 seeking for framing scheme and also declaration that the temple is public temple. The question of handing over the management to the petitioner will not arise while O.A.Nos. 24 and 25 of 2011 are pending before the second respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court inMadurai Sourashtra Sabha rep. by its Honarary Secreatry Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government and Others reported in 2007(2) MLJ page 913 for contending that though authorities were empowered to go into affairs of the temple. The exercise of the said power is not automatic or regular as if it is a Public Temple. Before making the decision, the authority should deeply consider whether auditing was warranted based on specific complaint or allegation of mismanagement.
9. In the present case, the facts narrated clearly would show that there has been difference of opinion between the two groups ending up in criminal actions. The temple was locked and poojas were not conducted. One person had already approached the authority for framing a scheme under Section 64(1) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1950. Further in the present case, as noted in the counter affidavit, the Commissioner HR and CE Department as the competent authority had agreed vide his order dated 19.03.2012 by considering the welfare of the temple approved for bringing the temple under the control of the Department.
10. This Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved, there is also remedy available by way of an appeal under Section 21(A) of HR and CE Act and the appeal provision for the petitioner has not been exhausted in the present case. The order passed by the Commissioner is not under Challenge. Secondly, two O.A.s are pending before the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, there is no case made out for entertaining the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed.
11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner Trust has announced Jeyanthi Uriyadi Urchava Vizha and Balabishega Vizha to be conducted on 07.09.2012 to 09.09.2012. However, it is made clear that power to organize any function now vests only with the Fit person and functions can be held only by the Fit Person not by anyone else.