BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 05-01-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.463 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.546 of 2006 S.V.Subramaniam .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Villupuram. 2.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Gingee, Villupuram District. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed praying for a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus to call for the records comprised in in proceedings in Nada.Na.K.No.5740/2005/A1, on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Villupuram/first respondent, dated 18.11.2005, and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the affairs of Arulmighu Pasmalai Subramaniaswamy Temple, Mel Ulakkur, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, without authority of law. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyadurai For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first respondent, dated 18.11.2005, removing the petitioner, who was the hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Pasumalai Subramaniaswamy Temple, Mel Ulakkur, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, and appointing a `Thakkar' to administer the affairs of the temple. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Pasumalai Subramaniaswamy Temple, Mel Ulakkur, Gingee Taluk, based on the judgment and decree, made in O.S.No.191 of 1973, dated 11.2.1976. Further, the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the first respondent does not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It has also been stated that the impugned proceedings had been passed by the first respondent, without applying his mind. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had refuted the averments and allegations made on behalf of the petitioner. He had also submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, only as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The petitioner has an alternative remedy and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner before the impugned order, dated 18.11.2005, had been passed. There is nothing shown on behalf of the respondents that an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show that he was the hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Pasumalai Subramaniaswamy Temple. Further, the impugned proceedings is in a printed format and there is nothing to show that the first respondent had applied his mind to all the necessary facts, before the said order had been passed. 5. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 18.11.2005, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, with regard to the claims made by the petitioner. It would be open to petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him before the first respondent, during the enquiry that would be conducted by the first respondent, including the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as alleged by the petitioner. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the other persons concerned, as expeditiously as possible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed. csh Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Villupuram. 2.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Gingee, Villupuram District. Writ Petition No.463 of 2006 AR(CO) EU 27.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/