BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/08/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.(MD)No.6819 of 2008
A.R.Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Endowment Board
Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner /
Executive Officer
Arulmigu Mariamman Kovil,
Irukkankudi,
Virudhunagar District.
...Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give the administrative
sanction and technical approval to the estimate of donor work proposed by the
petitioner for constructing "Unjal Mandapam" in the place where "Urchava Amman"
use to stay and give Darshan during the last Friday night in the tamil month of
Aadi in the North "Ulveethi" or in any other place fixed in the North "Ulveethi"
of Arulmigu Mariamman Kovil, Irukkankudi, Virudhunagar District for the above
said purpose by the respondents in spite of the pendency of criminal case
regarding the construction of R.C.C.Mandapam in the North Ulprakaram against
some persons.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam
^For Respondents... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar
Additional Govt. Pleader
:ORDER
The petitioner is a worshipper of Mariamman Temple, Irukkankudi,
Virudhunagar District. The petitioner gave a proposal for the purpose of
constructing a “Unjal Mandapam” in the place where the “Urchava Amman” is to be
brought for public darshan. According to the petitioner, year after year,
temporary structures were put up in the form of Pandhal with coconut leaves and
huge amount was being incurred for such purpose. Therefore, the petitioner had
voluntarily come forward to put up a permanent structure by which the temple can
save money. The proposal made by the petitioner was placed before the Board of
Trustees and the Board passed a resolution dated 29.11.2007 stating that they
will seek for technical approval and administrative sanction from the first
respondent/Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowment
Department, Sivagangai District.
2. When the proposal was sent to the first respondent/Joint Commissioner,
he gave a reply dated 21.04.2008 stating that in the matter of construction of
RCC structure, a criminal case has been registered, which is pending before the
Criminal Court. In the disputed land the building estimates are to be made
whether any course of action to concede the request was proper or not must be
first decided and then only the question of approving the estimate and granting
necessary sanction will be considered by the department.
3. When this decision was communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner
has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to
the respondents to give administrative sanction and technical approval to the
estimate of the work for which the petitioner had offered to donate. Such a writ
petition is clearly not maintainable. When the petitioner offered to make
certain donations for a specific purpose, it is for the temple to accept the
same. If the project is specified, then, the HR & CE Act requires
administrative sanction and technical approval by the department in terms of
Rule 11 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowment Rules.
4. When the authority who is empowered to grant such sanction and approval
expresses certain apprehension that the pending criminal case may have some
bearing and in view of the criminal case, the area had become a disputed area.
Hence, he had informed that the petitioner’s work requires further consideration
and only after making some clarification, further orders will be passed on his
request. When the respondent is awaiting further reply from the department, he
had rushed to this Court seeking for a direction as if this Court now should
grant administrative sanction and technical approval. Such a course of action
is not permissible and the matter of this nature is to be resolved only by the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Only when there is any
inaction which is contrary to the Act or the rules, this court has a limited
power of judicial review. In the present case, the petitioner’s offer to
construct a permanent structure had not been out rightly rejected and the Board
of Trustees have not sent reply to the petitioner negativing his proposal. The
Joint Commissioner had only wanted further time to consider whether the grant of
approval will have any bearing on the criminal case, pending before the criminal
court.
5. Under these circumstances, filing of a writ petition at this stage is
not only premature but also, it is mis-conceived and devoid of merits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, when asked as to what was his
right to file such a writ petition, he merely relies upon Rule 11 of the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowment Management and Preservation of
Property Rules.
7.The said Rule requires a worshiper to inform the Trustees and they will
obtain the details of his proposals and forward such details with the
appropriate authorities with their remarks. It is under Rule 12 and 13 the
authority can grant sanction. In the present case, there is no order passed in
terms of Rule 12 and 13. In the light of the above, the writ petition deserves
to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
tk/nbj
To
1.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Endowment Board
Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner /
Executive Officer
Arulmigu Mariamman Kovil,
Irukkankudi,
Virudhunagar District.