IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
C.R.P. (NPD). No.2962 of 2007
and
M.P. No.1 of 2007
P.Palanisamy ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board
Coimbatore.
2. P.K.Ramasamy
3. Tmt.V.Valliyathal
4. Arulmighu Malayala Thannasi Karuppanna Swamy Temple
Rep by its Executive Officer
Pattuthurai Post
Mottlanur (Via)
Erode District. ..Respondents
Prayer: This revision petition has been preferred under
Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order,
dated 26.7.2007, in CMA.No.8 of 2007 passed by the
Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, Erode District, confirming
the order made in Nada Na.Ka.3047/2007/a3, dated 12.4.2007
on the file of the first respondent/Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan,
For Respondents : Mr.R.Revathy, Government Advocate (For R1)
Mr.R.T.Duraisamy (for R2 & R3)
Mr.Mutharasu (for R2)
ORDER
Under this revision, the revision petitioner challenges
the order passed in CMA.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the
Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, who has upheld the
order of the first respondent/Joint Commissioner of HR & CE
Board, Coimbatore, who had appointed two nonhereditary
trustees under Section 47(2) of the HR & CE Act, in addition
to the revision petitioner, who is the hereditary trustee.
2.According to the learned counsel Mr.R.Karthikeyan
appearing for the revision petitioner, the Joint
Commissioner on the basis of a complaint received had passed
an order under Section 47(2) of the HR & CE Act without
looking into the explanation offered by the revision
petitioner for the complaint alleged against him. According
to the learned counsel, even in the order passed by the
Joint Commissioner under his proceedings Nada
Na.Ka.No.2047/2007/a3, dated 12.4.2007, only on the basis
of the letters produced at the time of enquiry, it was
brought to the notice that Hereditary Trustees of the
Temple have failed to discharge their duties to the
satisfaction and they failed to provide necessary facilities
to the devotees. Under such circumstances, P.K.Ramasamy and
Tmt.V.Valliyathal have been appointed as additional trustees
to administer the temple under Section 47(2) of HR & CE Act
for one year. The learned counsel would represent that the
two newly appointed trustees have not taken charge till
today. The revision petitioner aggrieved by the orders of
the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Board had preferred
CMA.No.8 of 2007 before the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram,
who had confirmed the orders of the Joint Commissioner.
According tot he learned counsel, the learned Appellate
Authority in his order has observed that there was an
enquiry conducted by the Inspector of the HR & CE Board on
the complaint made against the revision petitioner and had
submitted his report dated 27.3.2007 to the Joint
Commissioner recommending the initiation of proceedings
against the president of the Hereditary Trustees and also
recommended for the appointment of additional trustees. But
even a copy of the report of the Inspector of HR & CE Board
was not furnished to the revision petitioner to enable him
to offer his explanation. Even in the show cause notice
there is absolutely no reference with regard to the enquiry
conducted by the Inspector of HR & CE Board and also about
his report dated 27.3.2007, which, according to the learned
counsel, is against the principle of natural justice and
requires interference from this Court.
3.A perusal of the show cause notice except mentioning
of the complaint received from P.K.Veluswamy against the
revision petitioner there is no mentioning about the enquiry
conducted by the Inspector of HR & CE Board on the basis of
the complaint preferred by P.K.Veluswamy and also about his
report. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an
opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner after
furnishing the copy of the report of the Inspector of HR &
CE Board dated 27.3.2007 and after considering his
explanation, a fresh order is to be passed under the
relevant provision of law by the Joint Commissioner.
4.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and
the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Dharapuram, in
CMA.No.8 of 2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded to
the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Board, Coimbatore, for
passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the
revision petitioner to submit his explanation to the report
of the Inspector of HR & CE Board, dated 27.3.2007. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
ssv
To
1. The Joint Commissioner
HR & CE Board
Coimbatore.
2. The Sub Judge
Dharapuram.