AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the
respondent No. 3 appointing the respondent No. 4 as Fit person to the petitioner''s institution.
It is not disputed that the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy under Sec. 21(A) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment Act, 1959, to challenge the order of appointment passed by the respondent No. 3.
The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner was that an alternative statutory remedy will not be a bar to entertain this writ
petition for the reason that the petitioner''s institution is not covered under the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959,
being not registered or notified under Sec.71 of the Act.
It is also the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the impugned order has been passed without following due procedure of law
therefore, the writ petition is competent in this Court.
On consideration, I find that this writ petition is not maintainable, as alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. The contention
raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained in view of Sec.49 of Tamilnadu Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment Act, 1959 which reads as under:
Power of Assistant Commissioner to appoint trustees and fit persons
(1) In the case of any religious institution which is not included in the list published u/s 46 and is nota religious institution notified or deemed to have
been notified under Chapter VI of this Act, the Assistant Commissioner shall have the same power to appoint trustees including fit persons or
constitute a Board of Trustees and is vested in the Government, the Commissioner or the Joint/Deputy Commissioner in the case of a religious
institution referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (10 or in sub-section (2) as the case may be, of Section 47:
Provided that the Boar of Trustees constituted under this sub-section shall consist of three persons appointed by the Assistant Commissioner of
whom one shall be a member of the scheduled castes or scheduled tries and another one shall be a woman:
Provided further that in addition to the trustees appointed by the Assistant Commissioner under this sub-section, the Government may nominate
two persons who are qualified for appointment as trustees under this Act as members of the said Board of Trustees, having regard to the following
matters, namely:-
(a) the interest of the public generally;
(b) the income and the properties of the religious institution:
(c) the number of worshippers and importance of the religious institution as a pilgrim centre; and
(d) such other matters as may be prescribed;
Provided also that notwithstanding anything aforesaid in this sub-section, the Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of any such religious
institution which has no hereditary trustee, appoint a single trustee.
(2) The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 47 and of Section 48 shall apply to the trustee or trustees appointed or the Board of
Trustees constituted, by the Assistant Commissioner as they apply to the trustee or trustees appointed, or the Board of Trustees constituted u/s 47.
The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of T. Ramesh Babu and others vs. The
Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, K.K. Nagar, Madurai 20 and another (2009 (4) C.T.C. 320) to contend
that in pursuance to the appointment of Fit person, notice has been issued to the petitioner, first time only on 02.12.2011 taking over the charge.
The petitioner therefore, prays that the order of the third respondent be not given effect to, to enable the petitioner to approach the Joint
Commissioner to avail alternative statutory remedy of revision.
As already observed, this Court in the judgment cited supra, was pleased to observe as under:
As per the order passed by the second respondent in furtherance of the impugned order issued by the first respondent dated 09.03.2009, the
petitioner has to hand over charge of the Temple at 11.00 a.m. On 17.03.2009. In casse the second respondent takes charge of the Temple, as
per the proceedings issued by him dated 12.03.2009, it would seriously prejudice the case of the petitioner, as there would be nothing to be
stayed during the pendency of the revision by the joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him u/s 21.- A(4) of the HR & CE
Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period so as to enable the petitioner to file a
statutory revision before the Joint Commissioner.
Keeping in view of the law laid down by this Court, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of
revision under Sec.21-A(4) of the Act.
In case, the petitioner files revision within 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same shall be treated to have been filed before
the limitation period and decide the matter on merit.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for stay before the revisional authority. The operation of the impugned order shall
remain stayed till the decision of the revisional authority on the application moved by the petitioner, in case it is filed within 30 days of the receipt of
certified copy of this order.
11 The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
No cost.