C. Veerasamy and Others vs The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and Others

K. Ravichandra Babu, J.—In both the writ petitions, the respective petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the first respondent, dated 26.05.2015, appointing the respondents 3 to 5 as non-hereditary trustees of the temple called Arulmigu Kuttiyandavar and Mariamman Temple, Vembarampatti, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District and consequently, they seek for a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioners as non-hereditary trustees of the said temple.

Heard Mr. B. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 6 and perused the materials placed before this Court.

The crux of the grievance of the writ petitioners is that as per the scheme made in O.A. No. 13/2012/A4/dated 15.05.2015, they are also entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of non-hereditary trustees of the above said temple, as they also belong to a particular community referred to in the scheme, from which, such appointment should be made as per the said scheme. Therefore, it is contended that the present appointment made by the first respondent without inviting applications from the eligible persons belonging to that particular community, is in violation of the said scheme, apart from the fact that the impugned order has also not followed the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 1845 of 2015 dated 13.02.2015 filed by one V. Ravichandran, who is the 6th respondent herein, wherein this Court has directed the appointment of non-hereditary trustees as per the final scheme, after issuing notice to the interested parties.

The first respondent filed a counter affidavit and contended that before making the appointments of respondents 4 to 6, prescribed procedure and also the direction issued by this Court in W.P(MD) No. 1845 of 2015 have been followed. It is further stated that in a community meeting conducted by the elders of Vallampar Community, the names of the respondents 4 to 6 were recommended as per the resolution passed by them and therefore, those persons only were appointed as non-hereditary trustees. It is further stated that the petitioners have themselves got involved in criminal cases, wherein charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 253 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam and therefore, the petitioners are disqualified for appointment to the post of non-hereditary trustees.

Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 6 submitted that as against the order impugned in both the writ petitions, right of appeal is available to the petitioners under the statute and therefore, they can exercise such right by filing such an appeal. He further contended that when a scheme is framed, wherein the authorities were directed to consider the applications received from the persons belong to a particular community, the first respondent has rightly followed the scheme and passed the present impugned order and therefore, the same need not be interfered with.

It is seen that in respect of appointment of non-hereditary trustees to the subject matter temple, the scheme dated 15.05.2014 contemplates the procedure for making such appointment at paragraph 11, which reads as follows:--

A perusal of the above-said procedure of the scheme would show that the competent authority has to appoint the eligible persons from the particular Vallambar community on receipt of applications from the persons belonging to such community. Now, the question is how the application can be received by the competent authority and what is the method of such receipt. Answer to the said question would run as follows: This Court, while disposing of the writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 1845 of 2015 on 13.02.2015 filed by one Ravichandran, who is the 6th respondent herein, has specifically observed at paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 as follows:--

"3. The learned Government Advocate would submit that necessary steps will be initiated to appoint non-hereditary trustees for the temple in question after issuing appropriate notices to the parties concerned.

Without going into the merits of the cases, the respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner to appoint non-hereditary trustees for the temple as per the final scheme in O.A. No. 13/2012/A4 dated 15.05.2014 and gazette in the Pudukottai District in issue No. 14, dated 30.05.2014, after issuing notice to the interested parties, if any, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

When this Court has specifically directed the competent authority to appoint the non-hereditary trustees for the said temple as per the final scheme, after issuing notice to the interested parties, needless to say that such notice must be a videly circulated or published or informed public notice, however, confined to the particular community people. It can be either by way of making Tam Tam in that locality or by affixing a written notice in the local revenue office.

In this case, though the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent proceeded to contend that procedure prescribed in the Government Gazette and also the direction passed by this Court were promptly followed, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 is not in a position to satisfy this Court that such notice, as directed by this Court in the above said order, has been issued to the particular community people. Therefore, I am of the view that the present appointment of the respondents 3 to 6 was made without following due procedure cannot be sustained. No doubt, they have been selected by the elders of such community by convening a meeting, but, that does not mean that the said conduct of the elders of the community people can replace or be construed to be in lieu of the notice to be issued by the first respondent, as directed by this Court earlier. In other words, if a notice is issued by the first respondent, it may be for the elders to decide as to who are the persons to make such application. As this Court is satisfied that the present appointment of the respondents 3 to 6 were made without following the direction issued by this Court as stated supra, the impugned order has to be set aside for want of notice. This Court is not expressing any view on the merits and eligibility of the respondents 4 to 6, who were appointed as non-hereditary trustees. Equally, this Court is also not expressing any view on the merits of the petitioners to be considered for such appointment, as it is for the first respondent to consider such merits and eligibility and appoint such non-hereditary trustees as per the scheme.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for making appointment to the post of non-hereditary trustees of the above-said temple, after issuing public notice confining to the particular community, namely, vallambar community by making Tam Tam in the local village and also affixing a notice in the Office of the Village Administrative Officer of that village. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.