1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.2375 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 C.P.Thangachamy Pillai : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Sivagangai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Bala Namachivayam Pillai :Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.2642/2008/A7 dated 24.07.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to retain the petitioner as a Hereditary Trustee of Sri Kumara Kadavul Alias Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil, Karuppapillai Madam, Valanad, Muthukulathur Taluk, Ramnad District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muruganantham For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 24.07.2008 on the file of the third respondent, whereby and where under he was removed from the office of Hereditary Trustee of Sri Kumara Kadavul @ Subramaniya Swamy Temple and the fourth respondent was appointed in his place. 2. According to the petitioner, Sri Kumara Kadavul @ Subramaniya Swamy Temple is under the domine of HR & CE Department. A scheme was framed in respect of the said Temple. As per the said scheme, there should be three Hereditary Trustees. The petitioner had been acting as a Hereditary trustee. 3. While the matters stood thus, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.07.2008, whereby and where under the petitioner was removed from office and the fourth respondent was appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The principal contention raised by the petitioner pertains to the question of jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and only the Joint Commissioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of HR & CE Act for the purpose of removing the hereditary trustees. 6. The impugned order was passed as early as on 24.07.2008. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was removed from the office and the fourth respondent was appointed as a trustee in his place. There is nothing indicate in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why the petitioner has not challenged the order within a reasonable time. In fact, the order impugned is an appealable order. 7. In any case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( LA ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR rj2 To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Sivagangai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Board, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLADER SR: 10680: DM:2011::MARCH:15::: W.P.(MD)No.2375 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 01.03.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/