Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 303 (MAD)

Rajendran v. District Collector, Sivagangai

2022-02-02

M.SUNDAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records connected with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A5/4461/2021 dated 20.12.2021 on the file of the respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the fourth respondent to conduct fresh peace meeting by receiving the petitioner's documents and providing opportunity to the petitioner.) 1. Mr. S. Manoj Immanuel, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this virtual Court. 2. Mr. C. Satheesh, learned Government Advocate, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 (official respondents) is also before this virtual Court. 3. Captioned main writ petition can be disposed of by making an order which is not adverse to respondents 5 to 8 (private respondents) and by putting an adequate safety valve in place qua private respondents. Therefore with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, captioned main writ petition is taken up. 4. One Vellaikannu had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P(MD) No.22432 of 2021 seeking issuance of mandamus qua Joint Commissioner of of 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department' (hereinafter 'TNHR&CE Dept' for the sake of convenience and clarity) to permit Vellaikannu and his brothers to perform Pooja Punaskaram in the months of Karthigai and Maasi in 'Shri Chinnaiya Swamy Temple situate in Thenmapattu Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District' (hereinafter 'said Temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity). 5. The aforementioned writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in and by an order dated 17.12.2021 which reads as follows : 'In the captioned writ petition a public temple which goes by the name Shri Chinnaiya Swamy Temple situate in Thenmapattu Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is the nucleus. Tussle between the writ petitioner and third respondent [private respondent] regarding performing poojas in said temple for specified months is the central theme of the lis. 2. Ms. A. Banumathy, learned Counsel on record for writ petitioner is before me, Mr. T. Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 [official respondents]. 3. Tussle between the writ petitioner and third respondent [private respondent] regarding performing poojas in said temple for specified months is the central theme of the lis. 2. Ms. A. Banumathy, learned Counsel on record for writ petitioner is before me, Mr. T. Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 [official respondents]. 3. From the case file placed before me and the submissions made it comes to light that the captioned writ petition turns on a narrow compass and it can be disposed of by making an order which is not adverse to third respondent [private respondent] and by providing adequate safety valve qua rights of the third respondent. Therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides main writ petition was taken up. 4. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner contends that said temple was originally founded by one Karuthadayan common ancestor of writ petitioner and third respondent. Further short facts are that said Karuthadayan had two wives viz., Chinnapillai and Kathiraye; that the writ petitioner is a descendant qua Kathiraye branch and the third respondent is the descendant qua Chinnapillai branch; that the writ petitioner has the honour of performing poojas in said temple in the Tamil months of Karthigai and Maasi whereas the third respondent has the honour of performing poojas in said temple in the Tamil months of Vaikasi and Avani; that the writ petitioner is now being prevented by the third respondent in performing poojas in the two months in which writ petition has been performing poojas in said temple is the complaint. 5. Learned State Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of official respondents, on instructions submits that this is a case of tussle between writ petitioner and third respondent both being descendants of a common ancestor and a peace committee meeting is to be called for by the third respondent [jurisdictional Revenue Tahsildar] and that the same will be convened within one [1] week from today i.e., on or before 24.12.2021. 6. In the light of the narrative thus far, it will suffice to hold that the writ petitioner and the third respondent can participate in the peace committee meeting so that an amicable resolution can be made. To be noted, this is the safety valve qua third respondent [private respondent] which has been alluded to supra. 6. In the light of the narrative thus far, it will suffice to hold that the writ petitioner and the third respondent can participate in the peace committee meeting so that an amicable resolution can be made. To be noted, this is the safety valve qua third respondent [private respondent] which has been alluded to supra. In other words, it is made clear that first respondent shall put the third respondent on notice qua peace committee meeting and this will protect the right if any of the third respondent. 7. Before I conclude this order, it is made clear that the case before me is a claim for entitlement of a honour by custom / otherwise in said temple. This necessarily has to be decided by the second respondent under Section 63(e) of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' {hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity}. The Revenue Tahsildar will only attempt to resolve the issues pertaining to law and order for smooth functioning but the ultimate decision regarding entitlement of the honor qua writ petitioner as well as third respondent can be statutorily decided only by the second respondent Joint Commissioner under Section 63(e) which reads as follows: ''63. Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters.- Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matter:- (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) Whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;'' 8. A perusal of Section 63(e) will make it clear that the second respondent Jurisdictional Joint Commissioner is statutorily vested with the powers to decide such matters. Therefore, I make it clear that it is well open to writ petitioner and third respondent to approach the second respondent with appropriate application under Section 63(e) if need arises. In the interregnum it is open to the first respondent to take a decision in the peace committee meeting which is to be convened within one [1] week from today. 9. In the interregnum it is open to the first respondent to take a decision in the peace committee meeting which is to be convened within one [1] week from today. 9. The above drops the curtains on the captioned writ petition. Captioned writ petition is disposed of recording the aforesaid position. There shall be no order as to costs.' 6. Paragraph 4 of the aforementioned order captures the lis in a nutshell. 7. Paragraph 8 is effectively the operative portion and in the operative portion it has been made clear that peace committee meeting and proceedings thereat by the fourth respondent (Revenue Tahsildar) is only a interim measure and the honour claimed has to be decided only by the Joint Commissioner of TNHR&CE Dept (third respondent) by exercising the powers under Section 63(e) of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' [hereinafter referred to as 'TNHR&CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 8. Learned counsel for writ petitioner fairly submits that the writ petitioner (though not a party to the above earlier writ petition) accepts the order and is not assailing the same but the complaint of the writ petitioner is, his brother is the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition but writ petitioner was not permitted to participate in the peace committee meeting held pursuant to aforementioned earlier order being peace committee meeting held on 22.12.2021 at 03:00 PM in the Office of the fourth respondent. Learned State counsel submits that the writ petitioner did not go over to the Office of the fourth respondent. This Court deems it appropriate to not to express any opinion or view on this factual disputation. 9. This Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to relegate the matter to proceedings under Section 63(e) of TNHR&CE Act before the third respondent. Before that is done, a chart which according to the writ petitioner is the honour among the descendants of one common ancestor on rotation basis (month wise) has been given in paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, the same can be usefully referred to and the tabulation is as follows: 10. The writ petitioner's turn, even according to the writ affidavit averment is yet to begin as it is only in mid February (Tamil month of Maasi). The writ petitioner's turn, even according to the writ affidavit averment is yet to begin as it is only in mid February (Tamil month of Maasi). Therefore, it would be appropriate for writ petitioner to move the third respondent Joint Commissioner of TNHR&CE Dept under Section 63(e) of TNHR&CE Act arraying all the other descendants either as co-applicants or respondents and seek relief. 11. If the above course is adopted, the third respondent shall take up the petition filed under Section 63(e) of TNHR&CE Act, decide the same as its business would permit. This Court is clear that this alone will be a complete solution to the lis. This view is buttressed inter-alia by the obtaining position that TNHR&CE Act is a self contained code. This principle has been set out in a long line of case laws which are as follows: (i) In R. Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar v. The Commissioner, HR&CE case, reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2474, while inter-alia dealing with a honour (during 'Viswaroopa Dharsanam' in Arulmigu Aranganatha Swamy Thirukovil Srirangam, Trichy) and while referring to earlier orders vide Chapter V inquiry proceedings after holding that remedy is by way of statutory revision under Section 21, a learned Single Judge held that TNHR&CE Act is a self contained code. Most relevant portions are contained in paragraphs 25 and 27 and the same read as follows: Relevant portion in paragraph 25: '...Ultimately, if at all the petitioner's grievance to establish an honour attached to his office if any held it can be gone into only by instituting a proceedings under Section 63(e) of the TN HR&CE Act followed by a suit under Section 70(1) and a further appeal to this court under section 70(2) of the Act. Merely accusing the Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer as biased or contending that the remedy by way of revision need not be availed since the Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer has no jurisdiction to pass orders cannot be countenanced by this court. Paragraph 27: 27. In fact the petitioner's hereditary right to receive honour is seriously under challenge by the temple management by relying upon the Tamil Nadu Act 2/1971 and also the allegation was that Rengesa Prohida service is done only by temple servants and hereditary succession over such Kaingaryams is not recognised under law. Paragraph 27: 27. In fact the petitioner's hereditary right to receive honour is seriously under challenge by the temple management by relying upon the Tamil Nadu Act 2/1971 and also the allegation was that Rengesa Prohida service is done only by temple servants and hereditary succession over such Kaingaryams is not recognised under law. The socalled custom pleaded was also broken many times and reading of Panchangam was done by other families. All the more reasons, the petitioner has to only approach the authority under the Act and cannot bypass the Act. The Act is the self contained code. Only after exhausting all the remedies, a statutory appeal to this court is available over the action of the authorities. Under these circumstances, W.P.(MD) Nos. 9202 and 9263 of 2011 are also liable to be rejected.' (Underlining made by this Court for ease of reference) (ii) As there are long line of authorities as alluded to supra for the proposition that TN HR&CE Act is a self contained Code, this Court deems it appropriate to give a list of case laws alone in order to avoid this order becoming verbose, which is as follows : (i) order dated 21.06.2016 in W.P(MD) No. 10840 of 2016 vide V. Subramanian v. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department case [Paragraph 7]; (ii) Palanichamy v. The Commissioner, HR&CE Department case, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 21977 [Paragraph 30]; (iii) M/s.Temple Worshippers Society v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 7178 [Paragraph 5(i)]; (iv) order dated 09.11.2021 in W.P. (MD)No.20109 of 2021 vide R.S.Mani v. The Joint Commissioner [Paragraph 11]; (v) order dated 26.04.2019 made in W.P(MD) No.10392 of 2019 reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 10975 (C. Rajamohan Vs. Commissioner and another) [Paragraph 2]. 12. It is made clear that the 22.12.2021 proceedings of the third respondent is clearly a interim measure and does not decide the rights of the parties in any manner, as that would ultimately be decided only in proceedings filed under Section 63(e) of TNHR&CE Act. As and when the Section 63(e) proceedings are initiated by the writ petitioner, private respondents 5 to 8 will obviously be arrayed either as co-applicants or as respondents. This will protect the rights of the private respondents. As and when the Section 63(e) proceedings are initiated by the writ petitioner, private respondents 5 to 8 will obviously be arrayed either as co-applicants or as respondents. This will protect the rights of the private respondents. This is the reason why the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage and it is the safety valve put in place qua private respondents (alluded to supra). The other individuals in the aforementioned tabulation shall also be made parties. 13. Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations leaving the parties to work out the remedies before the third respondent i.e., Joint Commissioner of TNHR&CE Dept. Consequently captioned W.M.P is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.