Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
Poojari Is Servant Of Temple & To Be Appointed By Trustee Not In Line Of Succession Alone: Madras High Court
|The Madras High Court held that the Poojari is a servant of the Temple and is to be appointed by the Trustee not in the line of succession alone.
The Madurai Bench held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the heirs of Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari, claiming right of hereditaryship and poojariship of Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Madurai and the consequent shares in the Plate Collections and Hundial Collections.
A Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi observed, “Poojari is a servant of the Temple and Poojari is to be appointed by the Trustee. Subject to Section 28(1) of the Act [Care required of Trustee and his powers], the Trustee has to appoint the Poojari, not in the line of succession alone. As a servant, the Poojari is subject to the discipline and control of the Trustee. There cannot be any dual role as Hereditary Trustee cum Hereditary Poojari.”
The Bench said that the offerings made by the devotees, who are coming to the Temple, is for the deity and not for any individual.
Advocate J. Anandkumar represented the Petitioners while Additional Advocate General (AAG) R. Baskaran, Special Government Pleader (SGP) P. Subbaraj, and Advocate J. Anandhavalli represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
Arulmigu Pandimuneeswarar Temple is situated at Melamadai, Madurai Town and it was declared as a public temple, by the judgment passed by the Additional Sub Court, Madurai. It is a renowned Temple and thousands of devotees are thronging in the Temple every day and even more in the weekends and special occasions. The exact date of the establishment of the Temple is not clear, however, it is said to be in existence since 1800. As per the records, the Temple was administered by one Pandi Kodangi Poosari and thereafter, by his son, Periyasamy Poosari. Periyasamy Poosari was having two sons, namely, Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari. Periyasamy Poosari died when his sons were at tender age. Therefore, the Temple was administered by one Valliammal W/o. Periyasamy Poosari. Thereafter, the Temple was administered by Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari, the sons of Periyasamy Poosari. Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari had five sons and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari had five wives, through whom, he had six sons. The Temple is now administered by the heirs of Pandiyan @ Botha Poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari and the trusteeship was held by the members of this family.
The Writ Petition was filed before the High Court against the Notice issued by the interim Committee, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why an Order of recovery should not be passed as against him, for recovering a sum of Rs. 54,33,848/- [Hundial Share + Plate Collection]. The Petitioner, Chellapandi Poosari, was one of the Hereditary Trustees as well as Poojari of the Temple and he was terminated by the Joint Commissioner. It was confirmed by the Secretary to Government and as against the same, the Petitioner filed a Suit before the Sub Court, Melur, wherein, an Order of interim stay was granted. The Joint Commissioner, by an Order, recorded the Petitioners as the Hereditary Trustees and that they were entitled for all the monetary benefits. Challenging this, a Writ Petition was preferred and it was dismissed. Then, an Appeal was filed before the Commissioner and it was allowed. The matter was remanded back to the Joint Commissioner and being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed Writ Petitions and the High Court dismissed the same. Resultantly, they filed Revision Petitions and the Commissioner’s Order was quashed but the Petitioners’ claim was rejected. Hence, the Petitioners were before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “It is claimed by the parties that the Hereditary Trustees are functioning as Hereditary Poosaries. They further claim that it is their custom. But, in the Board Proceedings dated 05.09.1935, it has been recorded that the trusteeship was with the family members and that the poojariship was not according to primogeniture.”
The Court added that the concept has hereditary poojariship has been abolished by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 and as per this amendment Act, Section 55 of the Act [Appointment of office holders and servants in religious institutions] was amended to the effect that no person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy [office-holders or servants, which include Archakas and Poojaries] merely on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office.
“Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is for the entire country. Therefore, the parties before this Court cannot claim otherwise and that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, is squarely applicable to them as well”, it enunciated.
The Court observed that if the parties are claiming share based on the service [poojari] already rendered by them, then the Joint Commissioner, HR CE, Madurai, shall ensure that proportionate share, as on that date, is settled to them within a period of three months from date.
“The Executive Officer to be appointed, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in Paragraph No.45, shall take note of the above observations and shall proceed accordingly, till such time, the permanent / temporary vacancy of Trusteeship is filled up as per Section 54 of the Act”, it further directed.
The Court also remarked that it is a very sorry state of affairs that even though the devotees are offering this much of donations to the deity, neither the Department nor the Trustees have made any developments in and around the Temple and ultimately, the deity has been left in lurch.
“Notwithstanding the rise in the Temple's Hundial income from then to now, this Court is of the view that, given the number of litigations owing to this much of share amount and the misappropriation as well as maladministration, which led to the action initiated by the Department, this change in circumstances in the affairs of the Temple requires the revisional authority to reopen the matter, as per the above order dated 30.09.1999”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court answered the issues and disposed of the Petitions.
Cause Title- P.M. Chellapandi Poosari v. The Committee of Administrators & Ors.