IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:17.11. 2009
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No. 41205 of 2006
and
W.P.M.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 2006
1. M.Rajendran
2. S.Tirupathi
3. R.Ramesh
4. S.Vairavan
5. P.Parameswari
Trustees, Arulmigu
Muthumariamman Thirukovil,
Meenakshipuram, Karaikudi. .. Petitioners
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to
Government,
Law Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.9
2. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to
Government,
Commercial Taxes and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Fort.St.George,Chennai.9
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam,Chennai.34. . . . Respondents
Prayer: This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of declaration declaring the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.5 of 2006 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.07.2006 insofar as amendments to Section 7 A and Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 as void and unconstitutional insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
. . .
For Petitioner s : Mr. C.T.Murugappan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Viduthalai,
Advocate General, for
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,Spl.G.P.
. . .
O R D E R
Five petitioners, who were originally appointed as Trustees of Muthumariamman Thirukovil in Meenakshipuram at Karaikudi for a period of three years, have filed the present writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.5 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the period of trusteeship was reduced from three years to one year. At the time of admission, an interim order of status quo was ordered on 17.11.2006,due to which, petitioners continued to be the trustees for some time. Thereafter, at the instance of the respondent-department, the status quo order passed by this Court was vacated on 27.04.2007.
2. The petitioners assumed charges as Trustees on 16.11.2005 and the period of trusteeship, as per the original order of appointment, is now over and therefore, the learned counsel for petitioners states that at this point of time, the petitioners can not have any grievance, as the period is over. The learned counsel further submits that liberty may be given to challenge the ordinance if and when such need arises.
3. In view of the above, while granting such liberty, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. if and when such need arises.
PAL
To
1. Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Law Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.9
2. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to
Government,
Commercial Taxes and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Fort.St.George,Chennai.9
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 34