A.

Munusamy vs The Joint Commissioner on 7 July, 2010

Madras High Court

A.Munusamy vs The Joint Commissioner on 7 July, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.07.2010

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

W.P.No.25371 Of 2009
and
MP.No.1 of 2009

A.Munusamy .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner

HR & CE (Admn) Dept.,
Coimbatore 18.

2.The Assistant Commissioner

HR & CE (Admn) Dept.,
Coimbatore 18.

3.Fit person/Executive Officer,

A/m.Mahaveer Anajanayar Thiru Koil,
VOC Park, Erode,
Erode District 638 003 .. Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issu

For Petitioner : Mr.G.sukumaran

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,
Special Government Pleader
for R1 & R2

O R D E R

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1276153/ 1

 A.Munusamy vs The Joint Commissioner on 7 July, 2010

On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The writ petition is directed against the
instruction given by the first respondent to the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE and Fit
person/Executive Officer, A/m.Mahaveer Anajanayar Thiru Koil, VOC Park, Erode, who are the
respondents 2 and 3 herein for taking over the charge of A/m Sozheswarar Temple situated at
Cauvery River land, Karungalapalayam, Erode.

2. The brief facts which are relevant herein are:

The petition mentioned Sozheswarar Temple is situated at Erode. The temple is in existence from
time immemorial and it was in dilapidated condition and the renovation work of the temple was
adopted by one committee called Sozheswarar Alaya committee having the petitioner's father as its
President and temple thiruppani was held during 1971 with the funds collected from the
worshippers and the same committee took over the management of the temple affairs and continued
to look after the same.

3. Whileso, the second respondent has appointed the third respondent as the fit person of the
temple by his proceedings dated 19.04.2002 and till 2007 as per the letter dated 10.09.2007
addressed by the third respondent to the management committee the management of the temple
was not taken over by the third respondent/fit person and despite its due knowledge of the
appointment of fit person the committee in management of the temple did not comply with the
request of the respondents 2 and 3 to allow the fit person to take over the same.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and others created one trust in the name of 'Sivalaya Vazhipattu
Kuzhu Arakkattalai Trust' on 24.01.2007 and registered the trust deed as document No.26 of 2007
and as per one of the clauses in the trust deed the administrative members of the trust has its Board
of trustees consisting of the petitioner as its President, one Vice-President, Secretary, Additional
Secretary, Treasurer and 10 Executive committee members totally numbering 15. The committee
has without handing over the temple charge to the fit person filed Revision in R.P.No.3 of 2007
before the first respondent Joint Commissioner, HR & CE to stay the order of appointment of the fit
person so as to enable the Board of trustees to carry on the management and affairs of the temple
without any hindrance from any quarters and the operation of the order of Assistant Commissioner
is by order of the first respondent dated 29.10.2007, stayed pending disposal of the revision petition
R.P.No. 3 of 2007.

5. The petitioner and five others who are the office bearers of Sivalaya Vazhipattu Kuzhu
Arakkattalai Trust filed O.S.No.35 of 2007 for framing scheme for the management of the temple
affairs and the petitioners in the scheme suit arrayed the Assistant Commissioner, HRCE and the fit
person who are the respondents 2 and 3 herein as the respondents 1 and 2 therein, and the scheme
suit was duly contested and draft scheme was framed and pending confirmation of the same, before
the first respondent objections were filed against the same by the 4th petitioner in O.A.No.35 of
2007 and one K.C.Govindaraj and notice dated 10.11.2009 was issued by the Joint Commissioner to
the applicants in O.A.No.35 of 2007, objectors, fit person and the Assistant Commissioner, HRCE
for enquiry and in the same notice the Joint Commissioner has instructed both the fit person and
the Assistant Commissioner, HRCE for taking over the charge of the above temple immediately by

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1276153/ 2

 A.Munusamy vs The Joint Commissioner on 7 July, 2010

the fit person.

6. The particular portion of the notice under which the fit person is instructed to take over the
charge of the temple pending confirmation of the draft scheme is now challenged herein by one of
the applicants in O.A.No.35 of 2007.

7. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. According to the petitioner, the temple was originally managed by Sozheeswarar Alaya
Committee and after the creation of Sivalaya Vazhipattu Kuzhu Arakkattalai Trust during 2007, the
Board of trustees of Vazhipattu Kuzhu continued to be in the management of the temple affairs and
Vazhipattu Kuzhu Arakkattalai Trust has also challenged the appointment of third respondent as fit
person by the first respondent in R.P.No.3 of 2007 and pending such proceedings and pending
confirmation of draft scheme the first respondent has no authority to instruct the fit person to take
over the charge of the temple affairs. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
that in pursuance of such order the fit person has forcibly occupied the office of the Arakkattalai
inside the temple premises and thereby the Arakkattalai trust is prevented from looking after the
affairs of the temple amounting to illegal interference with the management of Arakkatalai.
Whereas, the respondent officials would strenuously argue that the appointment of fit person was
though stayed pending disposal of R.P.No.3 of 2007, proceedings in R.P.No.3 of 2007 came to be
closed, with the passing of draft scheme decree and serious objections are filed against the draft
scheme and pending confirmation of the same, it is necessary for the respondent officials to protect
the interest of the temple as well as the worshippers and the fit person whose appointment is till
date not set aside is the competent person to be entrusted with the administration and management
of the temple and the impugned instruction is issued by the first respondent only by exercising the
power vested upon him under section 49 of the HRCE Act.

9. The materials available herein would disclose that the appointment of the third respondent as fit
person of the temple in question is till date not set aside. R.P.No.3 of 2007 filed against appointment
of fit person is only closed without passing any final orders. That being so, this Court is of the
reasonable view that without going into the contention of the petitioner as to whether the temple
administration is forcibly taken over by the third respondent/fit person the impugned instruction of
the first respondent can be upheld for the following reasons:

10. The Sivalaya Vazhipattu Kuzhu Arakkattalai Trust is the creation of few individuals in their
capacity as residents of Erode and as worshippers of the petition mentioned temple. The
appointment of fit person is much before the creation of trust and the efforts made by the fit person
to take over the temple management from the committee was successfully avoided by the so called
Committee/Board of trustees. The Board of trustees having approached the appropriate forum for
getting scheme decree is bound by the decision made thereon. As per relevant clauses of the draft
scheme the temple will have not less than 3 and not more than 5, non hereditary trustees duly
appointed by the authority concerned by inviting applications from the trust members and the
managing trustee be selected from among the non hereditary trustees and the appointment of the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1276153/ 3

 A.Munusamy vs The Joint Commissioner on 7 July, 2010

trustees will come into force from the date on which the managing trustees is selected among them
and thereafter, the management of the temple will be entrusted to the trustees so appointed. That
being so, the petitioner and other members will not automatically get the right to be entrusted with
the temple management and neither the petitioner nor other trust members can also claim any right
to continue to be in the management of the temple. The draft scheme has also not authorised the
petitioner and others to continue to be in temple management.

11. Under such state of affairs, the authority concerned is empowered to make due arrangement for
the temple management during interregnum period till the temple administration is duly taken over
by the newly appointed trustees, as per the scheme. As on today the temple has its duly appointed fit
person who is also arrayed in such capacity by the petitioner and others in the scheme suit
O.A.No.35 of 2007 and the draft scheme is made only after hearing both sides. If that is so, fit
person appointed by the competent authority is the most competent person to be entrusted with the
administration and management of the temple so as to avoid any dispute in this regard among
individuals. In my considered view, the order of the first respondent suffers from no illegality which
warrants interference by this court.

12. The writ petition is hence dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.

tsh/vsm To

1.The Joint Commissioner HR & CE (Admn) Dept., Coimbatore 18.

2.The Assistant Commissioner HR & CE (Admn) Dept., Coimbatore 18.

3.Fit person/Executive Officer, A/m.Mahaveer Anajanayat Thiru Koil, VOC Park, Erode, Erode
District 638 003

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1276153/ 4