R.Kanagaraj vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to exercise their powers under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959. The Court ordered the appointment of the petitioner as one of the Non-Hereditary Trustees, along with others, after following due legal procedures. Pending this appointment process, the impugned communication was to be kept in abeyance. The Court expressed an expectation that the appointment of Non-Hereditary Trustees, as per Section 49(1) of the TN HR & CE Act, 1959, would be made expeditiously, preferably within four months from the receipt of the order. The reasoning was based on the prima facie indications that the petitioner had been maintaining the temple along with others and that the temple was attracting a large number of devotees during festival dates, suggesting a positive role played by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, R. Kanagaraj, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.04.2025 issued by the Inspector of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department. This order directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of the Arulmigu Kamatchiamman Udanurai Ekampareswarar Temple. The impugned communication was accompanied by an order from the Assistant Commissioner appointing the Inspector as a "fit person" for the temple. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from a series of communications and orders concerning the management of the temple, dating back to 2017, which indicated concerns about the temple's management, collection of tolls, and the petitioner's role in its upkeep. The petitioner contended that he, along with other villagers, had been managing the temple affairs and collecting charges for archana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of the temple, is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's alleged long-standing involvement in the temple's management and upkeep? (Question of law and fact, relating to the principles of natural justice and administrative propriety). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he, along with other villagers, had been managing the temple affairs, collecting tolls and charges for archana, and had been responsible for its consecration in 2011. He contended that the impugned order was arbitrary and overlooked his contributions to the temple's maintenance and growth, which had led to a large number of devotees attending during festivals. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the HR & CE Department, had issued the impugned order and appointed a "fit person," indicating a perceived need for intervention in the temple's management. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the respondents beyond their actions and the basis for them as reflected in the communications.