Judgment : Challenging the order of the first respondent in appointing a Fit Person to the petitioner-temple viz., Arulmighu Balagurunathasamy Sametha Angala Parameswari Amman Thirukoil, which is situated at Senthamangudi Village, which is a hamlet of Ayyampalayam Village, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:- (a) The petitioner-temple belongs to the community called 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Dharichiar Gothiram. Originally, the petitioner's grandfather A.Venkataraman Chettiar and one Dharmalingam Chettiar were hereditary trustees of the temple. They had filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, for a declaration, declaring that the temple is a denominational temple belonging to and managed by 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community Dharichiyar Gothiram and also for a permanent injunction restraining the authorities of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR & CE Department) from interfering with the management and administration of the temple by the people of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community Dharichiyar Gothiram. The said suit was decreed on 10.1.1979. (b) Kumbabishekam was performed for the temple in the year 1938 and thereafter, in the year 1981. Now, the renovation work is going on, out of the contributions made by the members of the said community. While situation stood thus, now the first respondent herein passed the impugned order in his proceedings dated 25.3.2013, appointing the second respondent as a Fit Person of the temple. Before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the management of the temple. (c) The temple is a religious denomination of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Dharichiyar Gothiram community. Hence, the temple is having a protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India from interference in its administration by the authorities under Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as HR & CE Act). Hence, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner approving the 2nd respondent as a fit person to a temple, which was declared as a denominational temple, is not legally sustainable. Moreover, the impugned order was not even addressed to the hereditary trustees of the temple. Hence, after obtaining a xerox copy of the impugned order by one of the members of the said community, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the same. 3. Moreover, the impugned order was not even addressed to the hereditary trustees of the temple. Hence, after obtaining a xerox copy of the impugned order by one of the members of the said community, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the same. 3. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 2013 to grant an order of interim stay of operation of the impugned order of the first respondent dated 25.3.2013. This Court, by an order dated 3.4.2013, has granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. 4. On appearance, respondents 1 and 2 viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the Executive officer of Arulmighu Sabthareeswarar Thirukoil, have taken out two separate applications in M.P.No.4 of 2013 and M.P.No.5 of 2013 respectively to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2013. Apart from the above two applications, one K.B.Periyasamy Chettiar and 15 others have filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2013 to implead them as respondents 6 to 21 in the writ petition. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, in M.P.No.4 of 2013, it has been stated as follows:- (a) Though the temple is a denominational temple, it is amenable to the control and jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the HR & CE Act. In fact, there are so many disputes pending between the petitioner party and other parties. So far, six peace committee meetings were held before the Revenue authorities, wherein 'no decision' or compromise was arrived at between both the parties. Moreover, a civil suit is pending between the petitioner party and other party on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, in O.S.No.288 of 2010, which fact was conveniently omitted to be mentioned by the petitioner. In fact, the said suit was filed by the proposed respondents, who have taken out an application in M.P.No.3 of 2013 to implead them as respondents 6 to 21, as against one D.Balasubramanian, Rameshkanna, V.Arunachalam Chettiar and S.Manivel as defendants with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to enter into the suit temple, offer worship and to participate in renovation work of the temple. (b) While situation stood thus, spate of complaints from the public and also from the same community people were received by the authorities of District Administration and also by the HR & CE authorities regarding the denial of worship in the temple and also about the conduct of the temple festivals, etc., and participation in the Kumbabishekam works between two groups of the people of the same community. Hence, a peace committee meeting was conducted by the Tahsildar, Musiri on 23.1.2012 at Taluk Office. But, due to the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.288 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy, no agreement was arrived at between the parties. Thereafter, five peace committee meetings along with the officials of police, HR & CE Department and Revenue Department were conducted. Even in the said peace committee meetings, no consensus was arrived at between the parties. (c) Both the parties are making allegations against each other regarding the contributions received for performing Kumbabishekam and renovation works. There are specific allegations regarding the receipt of huge sums of donations from the community people and other public to the tune of Rs.3 Crores without obtaining necessary permission from the HR & CE authorities concerned. On receipt of specific allegations of misuse of public donations, the Inspector of HR & CE Department, the third respondent herein was directed to verify the facts and to submit a report in this matter. Accordingly, on 23.3.2013, the third respondent made enquiries and submitted a report alleging that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner and therefore, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 25.3.2013 by appointing the second respondent as a Fit Person. (d) There is no recognised hereditary trustee of the temple at present. No one was recognised as incharge of the management of the temple at present. No scheme of administration has been approved by the authorities. The impugned order has been passed only to protect the larger interest of the temple and its devotees and also to safeguard and to regulate the contributions made by the community people and also the public at large. Thus, the first respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The impugned order has been passed only to protect the larger interest of the temple and its devotees and also to safeguard and to regulate the contributions made by the community people and also the public at large. Thus, the first respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in M.P.No.5 of 2013, filed by the executive officer of Sabthareeswaran Thirukovi, it has been stated that the subject temple is a listed temple. The Assistant Commissioner is the competent authority and till date, no scheme for administration has been framed. Therefore, nobody can claim that they are in management in the hereditary capacity. The petitioner ought to have filed OA claiming that the nature of office of trusteeship is hereditary and they should have recorded their name in the registers. This has not been done in the instant case. But, in the records, the name of one Ramarathinam Pillai is found as having filed O.A.No.7 of 1974. In those circumstances, in the interest of devotees and general public, it was thought fit to appoint a Fit Person. Whenever Thiruppani works are conducted, they should be duly audited and supervised, otherwise, there is always scope for misuse of public funds. In the instant case, the report of the Inspector indicates that Rs.3 Crores worth Thiruppani works are being carried out and it is not disputed by the writ petitioner. Therefore, Fit Person was appointed. In view of the interim stay granted by this Court, the Fit Person is not in a position to take charge. Hence, the third respondent seeks to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court. 7. The case of the proposed respondents 6 to 21, as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application in M.P.No.3 of 2013, in nutshell, is as follows:- (a) The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as he is not the hereditary trustee of the said temple. It is admitted that the temple belongs to the Darichier Gothiram of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community. The renovation work was started by the community people for Kumbabishegam by collecting funds from the people belonging to Dharicher Gothiram of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community, who have settled out of the village and are residing in far off places. It is admitted that the temple belongs to the Darichier Gothiram of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community. The renovation work was started by the community people for Kumbabishegam by collecting funds from the people belonging to Dharicher Gothiram of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community, who have settled out of the village and are residing in far off places. The petitioner has purposefully, with an ulterior motive, refused to collect funds from the community people, who are residing in and around the village, where the temple is situated and thereby decided to take over the management of the temple in individual capacity. (b) The petitioner has collected contribution of Rs.5 Crores and has disclosed accounts only for a sum of Rs.3 Crores. When the writ petitioner and his parties restrained the people, who were against their act of misappropriation of funds, the same was challenged by the proposed respondents by filing a suit in O.S.No.288 of 2010 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the application filed by the proposed respondents under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and the same was challenged by the petitioner's group by filing a civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.1841 of 2012 before this Court. The said civil revision petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 20.9.2012. The appointment of Thakkar is only in the interest of the temple. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner or respondents 1 to 5 for impleading the proposed parties as respondents 6 to 21. Thus, the proposed respondents sought for allowing the application in M.P.No.3 of 2013. 8. The writ petitioner has filed a counter affidavit opposing the application in M.P.No.3 of 2013. In the said counter affidavit, the petitioner denied the allegation of misappropriation of funds. Further, in the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the proposed respondents do not belong to the community of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Dharichiyar Gothiram. The proposed respondents have made allegations only for the purpose of getting themselves impleaded in the writ petition. The proposed respondents have already filed a civil suit. Therefore, they can wait till the outcome of the said suit. Thus, the petitioner sought for dismissal of the application for impleading the proposed respondents as respondents 6 to 21. 9. The proposed respondents have made allegations only for the purpose of getting themselves impleaded in the writ petition. The proposed respondents have already filed a civil suit. Therefore, they can wait till the outcome of the said suit. Thus, the petitioner sought for dismissal of the application for impleading the proposed respondents as respondents 6 to 21. 9. I have heard the submissions made on either side in the main writ petition as well as in the application in M.P.No.3 of 2013 to implead the proposed respondents. 10. (I) The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner-temple belongs to the community viz., 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Dharichiar Gothiram. The said temple has been declared as a denominational temple. The grandfather of the petitioner viz., A.Venkataraman Chettiar along with one Dharmalingam Chettiar had filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli for a declaration, declaring that the temple is a denominational temple belonging to and managed by 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community Dharichiyar Gothiram and also for permanent injunction restraining the authorities of the HR & CE Department from interfering with the management and administration of the temple by the said community people. The said suit was decreed on 10.1.1979. Since the said temple is the religious denomination of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community Dharichiyar Gothiram, the temple is having protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India from interference in its administration by the authorities under the HR & CE Act. The temple is expressly protected under Section 107 of the HR & CE Act by making inapplicable the other provisions of the Act including the appointment of a Fit Person. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is patently illegal and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subramanian, M.R. & others v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, etc. reported in 1997-2-L.W.8 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Appeal (Civil) No.4467 of 2005 dated 25.7.2005. (II) The next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the management of the temple. by its Secretary, etc. reported in 1997-2-L.W.8 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Appeal (Civil) No.4467 of 2005 dated 25.7.2005. (II) The next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the management of the temple. Therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. Since there is violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order, the petitioner can straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without filing a revision under Section 21 of the HR & CE Act. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1991(2) L.W. 213 – Radhakrishnan, T.P. v. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department. (III) Yet another submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the temple is a non-listed one, which is a denominational temple and hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent appointing a Fit Person to a denominational temple is unsustainable. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 47 of the HR & CE Act, submitted that under Section 47 of the HR & CE Act, the Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner/ Commissioner is having power to appoint trustees, if a religious institution is included in the list published under Section 46 of the HR & CE Act, pending the constitution of Board of Trustees. Likewise, in respect of non-listed temples, the Assistant Commissioner is having the same power under Section 49 of the HR & CE Act to appoint trustees including Fit Persons or constitute a Board of Trustees in the case of any religious institution as in the case of Section 47, under which provision, the Commissioner / Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner is having a power to appoint trustees for the temple included in the list under Section 46 of the HR & CE Act. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a close reading of Section 47 of the HR & CE Act would show that the Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner / Commissioner is having a power to appoint a Fit Person pending consideration of Board of Trustees in respect of a religious institution included in the list published under Section 46 of the HR & CE Act. Section 49 which deals about the power of Assistant Commissioner, says that Assistant Commissioner can appoint trustees including a Fit Person in respect of non-listed temple as in the case of Section 47 of the HR & CE Act under which provision the Commissioner / Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner is having power to appoint a Fit Person pending constitution of a Board of Trustees. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even for a non-listed temple, the Assistant Commissioner is having power to appoint a Fit Person only pending consideration of Board of Trustees. But, in the instant case, the temple being a denominational temple, the question of appointing the Board of Trustees for the said temple does not arise. When that being the position, the appointment of a Fit Person to a denominational temple is not legally sustainable. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. (A) Countering the said submissions, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 3 to 5 has submitted that since the petitioner-temple has been declared as a denominational temple, it does not mean that the said temple is completely out of control of HR & CE Department. Further, no exemption was given to the temple as provided under Section 4 of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the department can make an interference, if there is any mis-management. In the instant case, the department has received complaints from the public and also from the same community people as against the petitioner that the petitioner received a huge amount of Rs.3 Crores for performing Kumbabishegam and renovation work, without obtaining necessary permission from the HR & CE Department. In fact, the proposed respondents herein made a rival claim with regard to the management of the temple as against the petitioner group. In fact, the proposed respondents herein made a rival claim with regard to the management of the temple as against the petitioner group. In this regard, a civil suit is also pending in O.S.No.288 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. Till then, more than six peace committee meetings were conducted before the revenue authorities. However, no decision or compromise was arrived at between the parties. Therefore, it has become just and necessary to appoint a Fit Person to avoid misuse of public funds. Learned Special Government Pleader has also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007(2) CTC 11 – Madurai Saurashtra Sabha v. The State of Tamil Nadu. In the said case, the Division Bench, while dealing with the issue regarding the denominational temple, held that though HR & CE department is not automatically permitted to call for the entire records / accounts as if dealing with a 'Public Temple' directly under the control of the Department, if there is a specific complaint or allegation, it would be open for the authorities to summon the required accounts for auditing and verification. Therefore, there cannot be a blanket mandamus from interfering with the affairs of the denominational temple as claimed by the petitioner. (B) With regard to the non-issuance of notice to the petitioner-temple before passing the impugned order, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the question of issuing notice would arise only if there is a hereditary trustee for the temple. But, in the present case, originally one A.Venkataraman Chettiar and one Dharmalingam Chettiar were recognised as Hereditary Trustees. After their demise, no one was recognised as Hereditary Trustee of the temple. Therefore, the question of issuing notice before passing the impugned order does not arise in this case. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has also made his submissions supporting the impugned order passed by the first respondent. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1980 M.L.J.353 – Tamarakulam Vellala Samudhayam, Arya Kulasekhara Nangai Amman Temple Trustee, Subramania Pillai v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Nagercoil and another, wherein it has been held that the denominational temples are not exempted from payment of audit fee or contribution. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1980 M.L.J.353 – Tamarakulam Vellala Samudhayam, Arya Kulasekhara Nangai Amman Temple Trustee, Subramania Pillai v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Nagercoil and another, wherein it has been held that the denominational temples are not exempted from payment of audit fee or contribution. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the denominational temple cannot be said to be out of control of the HR & CE Department. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following questions have arisen for consideration viz., (i) Whether the order passed by the first respondent - Assistant Commissioner is without jurisdiction ? (ii) Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, since no notice was issued to the petitioner-temple before passing the impugned order ? (iii) Whether the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since there is an alternative remedy under Section 21-A of the HR & CE Act ? 14. With regard to the jurisdiction of the first respondent – Assistant Commissioner for passing the impugned order, appointing a Fit Person to the temple, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the temple is a denominational temple of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Community Dharichiyar Gothiram, they are having protection under Section 26 of the Constitution of India from interference in its administration by the authorities under HR & CE Act. The right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India to the temple is expressly protected under Section 107 of the HR & CE Act by making inapplicable the other provisions of the Act including the appointment of a Fit Person. 15. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents that even though the temple has been declared as denominational temple, the said institution cannot claim total exemption from the purview of the HR & CE Act. Even the denominational temple is amenable to the control and jurisdiction of the authorities of HR & CE Act. Insofar as the present case is concerned, two groups are claiming right for the management of the temple. Even the denominational temple is amenable to the control and jurisdiction of the authorities of HR & CE Act. Insofar as the present case is concerned, two groups are claiming right for the management of the temple. In fact, six peace committee meetings were held between the petitioner group and the other group, who have filed M.P.No.3 of 2013 to implead them as respondents 6 to 21. In this connection, a civil suit is also pending before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli in O.S.No.288 of 2010. In all the six peace committee meetings held before the revenue authorities, no consensus was arrived at between both the groups. In such a situation, the authorities of HR & CE department received complaints from the petitioner community people and from other community people that the petitioner has collected a huge amount of Rs.3 Crores for conducting Kumbabishegam and for renovation work. For collecting such huge amount, no permission was obtained by the petitioner from the HR & CE Department. Since there are serious allegations against both the parties, in order to protect the larger interest of the temple and its devotees and also to safeguard and regulate the contributions by the public at large, the impugned order came to be passed. 16. But, the petitioner is assailing the said order by saying that they are having protection under Article 26 of the Constitution of India and the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India to the temple is expressly protected under Section 107 of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the affairs of the petitioner temple even if there are any complaints or allegations. 17. A close reading of Article 26 of the Constitution of India would show that every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right -- (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law, subject to public order, morality and health. Therefore, in my opinion, the freedom guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India is not an unconditional one. No doubt, the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India is expressly protected under Section 107 of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the freedom guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India is not an unconditional one. No doubt, the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India is expressly protected under Section 107 of the HR & CE Act. But, it does not totally exempt the denominational temple from the purview of the HR & CE Act, if there is any complaint with regard to the mismanagement of the funds. As against the management of the temple, HR & CE Department is having every right to make an interference to protect the interest of the temple and its devotees. Since the petitioner temple is a denominational temple, the authorities of the HR & CE Department cannot sit as a silent spectator, when there were serious and grave financial irregularities, which were brought to their knowledge. Hence, in my opinion, the immunity granted by the Act is not absolute. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader reported in 2007(2) CTC 11 – Madurai Saurashtra Sabha v. The State of Tamil Nadu, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “ 11. ... we are of the view that the Deputy Commissioner or any other authority in the HR & CE department is not automatically permitted to call for the entire records / accounts as if dealing with a 'Public Temple' directly under the control of the Department. We once again reiterate and clarify that, if there is a specific complaint or allegation, it would be open for the authorities to summon the required accounts for auditing and verification. These relevant aspects have not been considered by the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. We once again reiterate and clarify that, if there is a specific complaint or allegation, it would be open for the authorities to summon the required accounts for auditing and verification. These relevant aspects have not been considered by the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Before concluding, we make it clear that there cannot be an blanket mandamus, forbearing the authorities of the HR & CE Department from interfering with the affairs of the temple, as claimed by the petitioner.” A reading of the said judgment would show that though the authorities of the HR & CE Department are not automatically permitted to call for the entire records / accounts as if dealing with a public temple directly under the control of the Department, if there is any specific complaint or allegation as against the denominational temple, it would be open for the authorities to summon the required accounts for auditing and verification. But, in the instant case, apart from the complaints against the petitioner, there was a dispute with regard to the management of the temple between two groups and a civil suit is also pending in O.S.No.288 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy. Under such circumstances, I find that the appointment of the Fit Person is perfectly valid and the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India and the protection under Section 107 of the HR & CE Act are not relevant issues to be dealt with in the background of this case. 18. A close reading of Sections 47 and 49 of the HR & CE Act would show that in respect of non-listed temples, the Assistant Commissioner is having power to appoint a Fit Person under Section 49 as the case may be of Section 47, which deals about the power of the Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner in respect of religious institutions included in the list published under Section 46 of the Act. Now, it is the submission of the petitioner that under Section 47, the Commissioner / Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner is having power to appoint a Fit Person only pending constitution of Board of Trustees. Section 49 says that the Assistant Commissioner can appoint a Fit Person as the case may be of Section 47. Now, it is the submission of the petitioner that under Section 47, the Commissioner / Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner is having power to appoint a Fit Person only pending constitution of Board of Trustees. Section 49 says that the Assistant Commissioner can appoint a Fit Person as the case may be of Section 47. Hence, only during the pendency of constitution of Board of Trustees, the Assistant Commissioner can appoint a Fit Person in the case of non-listed temple. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, the temple being a denominational temple of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiar Dharichiar Gothiram, the question of constitution of Board of Trustees does not arise. Hence, the appointment of a Fit Person to the denominational temple is not legally sustainable. But, a close reading of Section 49 would show that the Assistant Commissioner is having power to appoint trustees including Fit Person or constitute a Board of Trustees as in the case of Section 47, which deals about the power of Commissioner / Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner in appointing the trustees. In my considered opinion, Section 49 of the HR & CE Act does not restrict the power of the Assistant Commissioner to appoint a Fit Person only during the pendency of constitution of Board of Trustees. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the question of constituting Board of Trustees does not arise in the case of denominational temple, the first respondent has no power to appoint a Fit Person. Further, I am of the opinion, as observed above, if any specific allegation or grave financial irregularities about the denominational temple are brought to the knowledge of the authorities under HR & CE Act, they can appoint a Fit Person for a temporary period in order to protect the larger interest of the temple and its devotees and also to safeguard and regulate the contributions by the public at large. 19. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside since no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 19. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside since no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. On a perusal of the records, I find that originally one A.Venkataraman Chettiar, the grandfather of the petitioner and one Dharmalingam Chettiar had filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. In the said suit, the petitioner temple was declared as a denominational temple managed by the hereditary trustees viz., A.Venkataraman Chettiar and one Dharmalingam Chettiar. The relevant portion from the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:- “ ... that the temple, namely Sri Angalaparameswari and Sub-idols at Senthamangudi, h/o Ayyampalayam Village is a denominational temple belonging to and managed by the hereditary trustees namely, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 of 24 manai Telegu Chettiar Community Dharichiar Gothram. ...” Therefore, it is clear that the said A.Venkataraman Chettiar and Dharmalingam Chettiar were managing the temple as hereditary trustees. But, after their demise, no one was approved by the HR & CE Department as hereditary trustee of the temple. When no one was approved as a hereditary trustee of the temple, the non-issuance of notice to the petitioner will not serve as a ground to approach this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I am of the opinion, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the order passed by the first respondent, he has to seek remedy only under Section 21-A of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, absolutely, I do not find any violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot approach this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Even assuming for a moment, if there is any violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order, this Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute, under which the action complained of, itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. In this regard, useful reliance could be placed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “19. In this regard, useful reliance could be placed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” Therefore, I am of the opinion, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the HR & CE Act, the petitioner cannot straightaway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finally, I am of the opinion, no case has been made out warranting interference of this Court in the order passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.2, 4 and 5 of 2013 are closed. 22. M.P.No.3 of 2013:- In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, I am of the opinion that there is no need to implead the proposed parties as respondents 6 to 21. Hence, the application in M.P.No.3 of 2013 is closed.