Writ Petition (MD) No. 12579 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010. Case: Sundara Desikachariar Vs The Assistant Commissioner/Fit Person, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Department and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition (MD) No. 12579 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R. Subramanian and N.C. Ashok Kumar, Advs. and For Respondents: S. Kumar, Additional Government Pleader |
| Judges | R. Subramanian, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(5), 226, 32; Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 21, 63, 63(e), 70 |
| Judgement Date | March 17, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
R. Subramanian, J.
1. The prayer in this writ petition reads as follows:
"Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading to the impugned order of the 1st respondent herein in Na.Ka. 6736 of 2009/M1 dated 03/03/2010 and quash the same".
2. The question that is being raised in this writ petition is whether the second respondent incurred disqualification because of his overseas travel. This writ petition has got chequered history. The temple namely, Arulmigu Sarangapani Thirukoil, Kumbakonam is governed by a scheme decree and the same has been modified in I.A. No. 53 of 1955 in O.S. No. 27 of 1920 on 30.06.1956 by the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. The second respondent, who was performing service of Archaga/Battachariar in the said temple, undertook overseas in the year 1991 and there was an objection to the same claiming that priest of a Vaishnava shrine incurs disqualification if he undertakes overseas travel. There were several rounds of litigation with no final conclusion in right. The position of law on this question has been espoused by the Hon'ble Supreme Curt in the recent judgment in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 354 of 2006 (in ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU & ANR).
3. The order challenged in this writ petition is passed by the Assistant Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Department, who is also the fit person of the said temple. Pursuant to the direction of this court in W.P. No. 890 of 2005 an enquiry was undertaken by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, after ascertaining the views of various religious scholars, has finally concluded that since the second respondent has performed atonement 
meant for persons who travel overseas would be entitled to perform poojas. The petitioner would contend that procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner in obtaining opinion from various people and arriving at a final conclusion based on their opinion is not correct.
4. The question relating to disqualification incurred by Archakas of Vaishnava shrines has been a matter of controversy. In the case C.A. Jagannathan Vs. T.E. Srinivasan and others (reported in 2001 (3) LW page 459), the said question was raised and ultimately the Hon'ble Justice MRS. PRABHA SRIDEVAN held that a suit under Section 70 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is maintainable against the order passed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial