HR & CE Department Can Take Action For Maladministration Involving Temple Properties But It Can’t Interfere With Performance Of Pooja: Madras High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal filed against the order directing the respondents not to interfere in the administration of the temple Arul Migu Vembiamman Thirukovil Trust. However, it was open to the HR & CE Department or the concerned authority to examine the issue at the appropriate level and to take a decision after hearing any person who claimed the right over the temple.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M.Subramaniam & Justice P.Dhanabal explained, “Therefore, in the event of maladministration, illegality or irregularity in dealing with the properties of the temple, the HR & CE department is bound to step in and initiate all appropriate actions. However, department has no power to interfere with the religious practices or performance of poojas in the temple, which is to be done as per the custom and practice prevailing amongst the villagers and adopted in the temple.”

Advocate A.M.Venkata Krishnan represented the Appellant, while Advocate U.Venkatesan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A dispute existed between the appellant and the first respondent in administering the subject temple. On account of frequent quarrels and disputes, a representation was sent to the District Collector for initiation of action. Since no action was taken, a writ petition came to be instituted. The Writ Court granted an interim relief in favour of writ petitioner, thereby restraining the appellant/ fourth respondent from interfering with the day-to-day activities of the subject temple. The said direction paved the way for the institution of an Intra Court appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, made it clear that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 applies to all Hindu religious institutions. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act, the Bench noted that the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide whether an institution is a religious institution, which would include whether it is administered privately, or the institution assumes the character of a public institution.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the temple is constructed in a grama-natham land and the land belongs to villagers. “In other words, it is a common public land. It is further not in dispute that whole villagers are worshipping deity in temple and contributing for conduct of poojas, festivals, functions etc. When public contributions/donations have been accepted, temple assumes the character of a public institution. If public contributions are involved, State can intervene in case of maladministration or misappropriation of funds, following the procedure as outlined in the Act and Rules, and take necessary actions”, it noted.

The Bench further held, “Right to administer the temple would not include maladministration. Therefore, power of State is not confined only in respect of notified public religious institutions, since the definition of temple would include temple used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, and Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide issues relating to characteristic of a religious institution.”

The Bench was of the view that the subject temple assumes the characteristic of a temple and would fall under the definition of “Temple” within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Act.

Considering that the application was filed by the first respondent under Section 63(B) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner, the Bench ordered that the Joint Commissioner should adjudicate the application on merits by affording opportunity to all the parties, and decide the issues in accordance with law. “Regarding temple administration, dispute exist between the appellant and 1 st respondent may be resolved by approach competent Civil Court of law. As far as the other allegations are concerned, the HR & CE department may conduct an inspection and if necessary, initiate further action by following procedures as contemplated under Act and Rules”, it added.

The Bench also made it clear that mere pendency of an application under Section 63(b) is not a bar for the department to initiate appropriate action under the Act in order to maintain peace and tranquillity in the subject temple. The Bench, thus, disposed of the appeal with such directions.

Cause Title: R.Thirumurugan v. R.Thennarasu (Case No.: WA No. 2077 of 2023)

Appearance

Appellant:Advocate A.M.Venkata Krishnan

Respondent: Advocate U.Venkatesan, Special Government Pleaders S.Senthilmurugan, N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

Click here to read/download Order