1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.10801 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 S.R.M.Ramamurthi Poosari, Chairman Board of Hereditary Trustees, Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Irrukankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. : Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George,Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai-600 024. 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil, Irrukangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Taluk. : Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the suo-motu proceedings in O.A.No.6 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai, the third respondent herein and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Alagiriswamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.D.Ramalingam For Respondents 1to3: Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. For Respondent-4 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the suo motu proceedings initiated by the second respondent under Section 64(5) read with Section 118(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr.K.Alagiriswamy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. The Arulmighu Mariamman Temple,Irrukankudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District is governed by a Scheme framed, way back on 4.5.1935 in O.A.No.16 of 1934 by the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. The Scheme was later modified in O.A.No.9 of 1955 by an order dated 31.5.1955. 4. The second respondent initiated suo motu proceedings in O.A.No.4 of 2000 and issued a notice dated 17.11.2005, proposing to modify the Scheme. Challenging the initiation of proceedings, two writ petitions came to be filed in W.P.(MD) Nos.3040 and 3517 of 2010. These two writ petitions were taken up by a Division bench of this Court along with a batch of Writ Appeals. By a common order dated 21.2.2011, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and set aside the suo motu proceedings. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as follows:- "RELIEFS/DIRECTIONS: 54. a) Order dated 8.1.2010 passed in suo-motu O.A.No.4 of 2000 is quashed for violation of rules, principles of natural justice and for lack of jurisdiction and W.P.(MD) Nos.3040 and 3517 of 2010 are allowed. b) Since the issue of declaration regarding the status of Poosaries as Hereditary Trustees is pending adjudication in O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi, the same is directed to be disposed of as per paragraph 52 of this Court expeditiously by the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi preferably within 6 months from the date of production of copy of this order. c) Till the Civil Court decides the matter, the existing "11" Hereditary Trustees would remain. In other words, status quo prior to passing of order in suo motu O.A.No.4 of 2000 dated 9.3.2010 shall remain till O.S.No.53 of 2007 is decided. d) If any vacancy arises in the meantime, the same shall be filled up by primogeniture as per order dated 23.5.1977 in R.P.No.169 of 1975, which continues to remain in force till date. e) i) In fine Writ Appeals are dismissed. ii) As per the order of the learned Single Judge, Mr.Sivaraman, Advocate Commissioner having office at No.38, High Court Law Chamber, Madurai-23 shall conduct the election with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 existing collegium "11" Hereditary Trustees within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order in the presence of RDO Virudhunagar. iii) Proper police bandobust shall be provided by the police authorities if required by the Advocate Commissioner. iv) After declaration of result, the authorities/concerned person shall hand over charge to the newly elected Chairman forthwith. v) All the parties are directed to co- operate for smooth conduct of election. f) W.P.No.4287 of 2010 is ordered. g) This Court reiterates that the directions contained in this order shall prevail and no interim or final order conflicting with this order except to the extent as to what is stated regarding the disposal of O.S.No.54 of 2007 shall be passed. 55. In the result, Writ Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are also dismissed. No costs. W.P. (MD) Nos.3040, 3517 and 4287 of 2010 are allowed. No costs. Consequently connected M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 in W.P.(MD) Nos.3040 and 3517 of 2010 are closed. M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.4287 of 2010 is closed. No costs." 5. As against the aforesaid common order, several appeals were filed before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.11570 to 11576 of 2011. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions by an order dated 11.5.2011, of course with liberty to the respondents. The order of the Supreme Court reads as follows:- "No ground. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. As the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 8.1.2010 has been set aside by the High Court only on the ground that it is opposed to principles of natural justice and on the ground that the Joint Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reduce the number of Trustees, it is always open to the Joint Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Nothing stated in the impugned order of the High Court shall be construed as expression of any opinion in regard to the matter that is pending before the Civil Court." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 6. In view of the liberty so granted, the second respondent has issued the suo motu proceedings impugned in the present writ petition, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 7. Though the petitioner does not have any objection to the second respondent framing of Scheme, in respect all other matters, the petitioner objects to one of the proposals made by the second respondent viz., to reduce the total number of Trustees. To be precise, the objection of the petitioner, to the impugned proceedings, is only in respect of clause (3) of the proposal and it reads as follows:- "3. The above mention temple and its properties shall be administered and managed by the Board of Hereditary Trustee or Trustees not exceeding six in number, who shall be the liner descendants or the respective original Hereditary Trustees, as decided by the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments in Board's order No.266/26 dated 16.8.1926 along with the Executive Officer appointed under Section 45(i) of the Act (Now in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner)." 8. The above clause in the impugned proposal, is actually a repetition of clause No.4 of the earlier proposal in O.A.No.4 of 2000, which became the subject matter of the previous proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to have a look at the way in which the Division Bench dealt with this issue. 9. It is seen from the judgment of the Division Bench that after holding the suo-motu proceedings to be wholly vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice, the Division Bench went into the question of reduction in the number of Hereditary Trustees, in paragraph 43 onwards of its decision. After referring to a number of proceedings, documents and registers, from the year 1945 onwards, the Division Bench recorded a finding in paragraph 45 of its decision that the existing composition of 11 Hereditary Trustees, has been in vogue right from 1957. The Division Bench also recorded the fact that the total number of Hereditary Trustees has been 11, right from the year 1957 upto the year 2010. Consequently, the Division Bench held that the number of Trustees, cannot be reduced. 10. The question as to whether there could be six Trustees as proposed by the second respondent or eleven, as suggested by the petitioner, was considered in great detail by the Division Bench. Ultimately, in paragraph 54(c), the Division Bench made it clear that till the Civil Court decides the matter, the existing composition of 11 Hereditary Trustees would continue. This direction issued in the operative portion of the order of the Division Bench, was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Hence, Clause No.3 of the impugned suo motu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 proceedings, cannot be allowed to stand. 11. Though it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that the previous proceedings were set aside only for violation of natural justice and that the third respondent was given absolute liberty to proceed afresh, I do not think that the third respondent has any right to tinker with the direction issued under paragraph 54(c) of the Division Bench judgment. The liberty given by the Division Bench and confirmed by the Supreme Court, is only for the initiation of suo motu proceedings for all other aspects, but not the one relating to the restriction of the total number of Trustees. This question should await the outcome of only the civil proceedings. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, Clause No.3 of the impugned proceedings alone is set aside and the third respondent is permitted to proceed further with the enquiry in respect of all clauses. The question of number of Trustees can be decided depending upon the outcome of the suit as narrated by the Division Bench. The Sub Court, Sivakasi is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.54 of 2007, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St. George,Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai-600 024. 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil, Irrukangudi, Sattur Taluk,Virudhunagar Taluk. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, 42903 W.P.(MD)No.10801 of 2011 07.12.2011 SVN/SMA/16.12.2011/6C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/