N.Munuswamy Vs. the Commissioner, and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[vinod k.sharma, j.] constitution of india - articles 226 -- there are two important temples in the village; one is shri ellaiamman temple and shri chandrasekaraswamy temple. there are other temples also in the village. the petitioner claims to be worshipper of the said temple. the respondent no.3, admittedly has not granted any lease so far.prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2012 and pass orders.o r d e r1. the petitioner is the resident of new gummidipoondi village and taluk, thiruvallur district. there are two important temples in the village; one is shri ellaiamman temple and shri chandrasekaraswamy temple. there are other temples also in the village.2. shri chandrasekaraswamy temple owns 2.98 acres of land in s.no.286 in the above village. shri ellaiamman temple is the owner of 4.82 acres of land in s.no.292/1 and 1.32 acres in s.no.284/1 in the said village. these two temples are public temples. the day today administration of the temple is being conducted from the contribution of the general public of the said village.3. the petitioner claims to be worshipper of the said temple. the said two temples come within the purview of the hr & ce board. thus, are governed by the provisions of hr & ce act.4. thiru kamu chettiar, s/o ganesa chettiar claims to be hereditary trustee of the said temple. similarly, one muthumaraswamy chetty also claims to be the hereditary trustee of the temple. these two persons are not maintaining the properties of the temple properly and acting against the interest of the temple, and also mismanaged the immovable properties of the temple. the lease money has also been misappropriated by these persons.5. it is the submission of the petitioner that m/s.surya dev alloys and power plant ltd., the respondent no.3 has entered into clandestine understanding with these persons to usurp the properties of the temple, as it is sought to be used for power projects and other purposes.6. the respondent no.6 and 7 are also trying to encumber and alienate the property of the temple. the petitioner therefore has filed representation with the respondent no.1 & 2, but no action has been taken thereof.7. on the pleadings referred to above, the prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation.8. on consideration, i find the writ petition as framed is totally misconceived. there are no specific allegation of grant of lease nor copy of the lease has been placed on record. the petitioner if aggrieved by any action of the temple or its trustees, can invoke provisions under the hr & ce act. the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be directed to take action on the representation which is vague and lack material particulars.9. this court can question the action of the respondents 1 and 2, if there is violation of provisions of the act, in grant of lease, but no presumption can be drawn that the respondent 1 and 2 will act against the provisions of law.10. the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents 1 and 2 are likely to grant lease to the respondent no.3 in violation of provisions of the act. this contention deserves to be noticed to be rejected as it goes against the well settled principle of law that the act of the authority is deemed to have been done in accordance with law unless it is proved otherwise. the writ petition cannot be entertained on presumption, as it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the lease if any granted in violation of the provisions of the act. the respondent no.3, admittedly has not granted any lease so far.11. the writ petition therefore on the face of it premature. in any case, if any lease is granted in favour of the respondent no.3, the petitioner can always challenge it under the provisions of hr & ce act.no merit, dismissed but with no costs.connected miscellaneous petition is closed.