@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R. Subbiah, J@mdashThe Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to form a ''Thirupani Committee'' as per the peace committee decision dated 18.06.2015 in order to perform Kumbabhisekam scheduled to be held in the month of January 2016 for Arulmigu Mariammal Thirukovil, Pudupalayam, Rajapalayam Town to enable all the communities to participate in the Kumbabhisekam.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the Writ Petition are as follows:-
2.1. The petitioner herein is the President of All Community Festival Committee. He is filing this Writ Petition on behalf of his Community as well as the other Communities also. There is a temple known as Sri Mariamman Temple at Pudupalayam, which has been in existence from time immemorial. The said temple being a public temple is under the control of the first respondent herein. Hence, the respondents 1, 2 & 7 herein have active control and they are the responsible authorities of the temple and the celebrations therein. As the fact remain so, one of the communities, namely, Rajus community, claimed exclusive right over the administration of the temple. Therefore, excepting Raju Community all other communities in the locality instituted several civil suits praying for right of worship and to declare it as a ''public temple''. The litigation went upto the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2417 of 1992 and by judgment dated 14.08.2001 it has been held as follows:-
"In the result, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the suit temple is a public temple. The management of the suit temple has been with religious denomination of Rajus. However, the right of management of the appellants shall not prevent the department from exercising such powers, which are conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple."
3. The fact remains that Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukovil at Pudupalayam in Rajapalayam Town is declared to be a public temple and people from all the communities are worshipping the deity and participating in the festival. Every year in the tamil month of Chithirai, Mariamman Temple Festival will be celebrated in a grand manner for ten days, in which, all the communities will participate, but the temple is being managed by Rajus Community.
4. Since the temple is a public temple, the general public of Rajapalayam sent a detailed representation on 17.06.2015 to the first and the second respondent herein with a request to appoint a fit person to the temple for proper maintenance of the temple and the accounts for it, thereby removing the irregularities of the eighth respondent herein. While so, it is found that the eighth respondent herein obtained permission from the first respondent herein on 12.06.2015 for performing Palalayam on 19.06.2015. On the strength of the said permission letter, the eight respondent, all of a sudden, by his proceedings dated 17.06.2015 took speedy steps to celebrate Palalayam in the absence of rest of the communities on 19.06.2015. The first respondent''s permission to perform palalayam to the eighth respondent herein is illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the petitioner and other community people together agitated before the sixth respondent. Therefore, the sixth respondent convened a peace committee meeting, by his proceedings, dated 18.06.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Balalayam was performed on 19.06.2015 with the participation of the members from the other communities.
5. In the said peace committee meeting, the representatives of the petitioner community as well as the representatives of other communities and concerned Government officials participated wherein it was decided to have an administrative committee amongst the members of all the eight communities. Further, it was resolved that equal treatment and rights shall be given to all the communities and the accounts in regard to the festival shall be submitted to the above-said administrative committee. The said decision was arrived unanimously, in the presence of the official respondents of all the communities including Rajus community and the same was reduced to writing and attested by all the participants.
6. Pursuant to the decision of the Peace Committee Meeting, four names from each community was furnished to the eight respondent to enable to form a Thiruppani Committee. However, to the shock and surprise, the eighth respondent floated the Peace Committee proceedings in air, by failing to form a new administrative committee and acting in accordance with the terms set forth therein. Therefore, on 28.07.2015, a detailed representation was sent to the respondents. At this juncture, the eight respondent herein has commenced the preparations to celebrate Kumbabishegam in the month of January 2016 without the participation of the representatives from other communities. Taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court, the fifth respondent herein by his proceedings in A5.Pa.Ve/3771/2015 dated 07.08.2015, has instructed the fourth respondent herein to take appropriate step to celebrate the festival in accordance with the decision of the peace committee meeting and further instructed to convene a Peace Committee meeting immediately in association with the sixth respondent herein to avoid a law and order problem, that may occur due to the illegal act of the eighth respondent herein. The sixth respondent herein was also duly informed about the same. Therefore, the sixth respondent herein again arranged a Peace Committee Meeting on 25.08.2015 to implement the terms and conditions in accordance with the earlier decision. But the eighth respondent has refused to give effect to the earlier Peace Committee Meeting decision and further he refused to collect money from the people of other communities.
7. Due to the said attitude of the eighth respondent, no consensus was reached in the Peace Committee Meeting held on 25.08.2015. Therefore, on the same day, a request was made to the eighth respondent in Peace Committee Meeting itself to stop the unlawful acts. But the eighth respondent continued with Kumbabisheekam work inspite of the fact that the temple is a public temple. Once again, a representation was sent on 28/08/2015 to the respondents herein. But there was no reply from the respondents. Having been left with no other remedy, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The seventh respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the subject temple is a public temple and that its management has been with religious denomination of Rajus, which has been conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple. The said temple is being managed by Trust Board comprising members chosen by the Rajus community from Singarajakottai. An approval was given on 08.03.2013 for the appointment of the three non-hereditary trustees by the second respondent. Nearly seven decades have elapsed since Kumbabhisegam was performed for the temple. The second respondent permitted the Trust Board to do the repairs and renovation works of the temple by the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Sivagangai, made in Mu.Mu. No. 9927 and 9928/2006/E3 dated 07.12.2006. Thereafter, the second respondent sought permission from the first respondent to do Balalayam function. The first respondent granted permission to do Balalayam on 19.06.2015 and the eighth respondent performed Balalayam on 19.06.2015. Further, thirupani works are to be performed by the specified donors. There is no scope of forming any Thirupani Committee nor there is any question of collection from the public. All members of the public are free to come and worship in the temple. However, there is no question of installing any stone tablet. The trust board is getting permission from the first and the second respondent to do thirupani work with specified donors. The Trust Board has got rights to do the temple renovations work for which they have got permission from the first and the second respondents. Thus, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
9. The eighth respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, Pudhupalayam, Rajapalayam Town, Virudhunagar District, is an ancient temple. The issue arose regarding the said temple and the same has attained finality in Civil Appeal No. 2417 of 1992. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 14.08.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 2417 of 1992 with SLP (C) No. 19184 of 2000 held that the said temple is a public temple and that its management has been with religious denomination of Rajus. However, the rights of management of Rajus shall not prevent the department from exercising such powers which are conferred upon them by law in regard to the administration of the temple. The Hon''ble Supreme Court specifically held that Rajus have been in management of the said temple all along and that this was not lost before the constitution came into force. The subject temple is managed by a Trust Board comprising members chosen by Rajus community from Singarajakottai. On 08.03.2013 vide proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 1440/2013-1/A1, approval was given for the appointment of the three non-hereditary trustees. Nearly seven decades have elapsed since Kumbabhisegam was performed for the temple. Therefore, the community passed a resolution in this regard. The donors had come forward to execute specific works. This had earlier been permitted as early as on 07.12.2006 in Mu.Mu. No. 9927 and 9928/2006/E3 by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Sivagangai. In this connection, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 18.05.2015 to the Commissioner, HR&CE Department seeking permission to conduct Balalayam. While so, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 104/2015/E3 dated 25.05.2015, a communication was sent by the second respondent to the first respondent seeking permission. The first respondent vide his order dated 12.06.2015 in O.Mu. No. 24147/2015/I2 granted permission to do Balayam on 19.06.2015. There are other proceedings in this regard that were issued on 10.06.2015 by the HR&CE Department. However, the local elements kept on creating law and order problem. It is true that the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam convened a Peace Committee Meeting on 18.06.2015, but the eighth respondent was outnumbered by the other communities. Since the eighth respondent was concerned about the Balalayam to be performed on 19.06.2015 and the preliminary works were to commence prior to Balalayam, the revenue authorities as well as police informed the petitioner that unless the petitioner signs in the Peace Committee Minutes, the Balalayam function cannot go on. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no other option but to agree with Peace Committee Meeting. Further, it is stated that the Kumbabhissegam is to be performed by specified donors. There is no scope of forming any Thirupani Committee for collection from the general public. The subject temple is a public temple. All members of the public are free to come and worship in the temple. However, there is no question of installing any stone tablet. The proceedings issued by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department in favour of the Rajus Community has not been questioned in the manner known to law. Further, a statutory proceedings cannot be undone or undermined by a set of minutes passed in the Peace Committee Meeting. The management had always been with the denomination of Rajus. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner is wrong in claiming that the respondents 1, 2 and 7 are active control as responsible authorities of the temple. The general public can very well participate in the Kumbabhisegam. If there are any illegalities as alleged by the petitioner, certainly Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department would intervene.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject temple is a public temple and hence it belongs to the people from all communities and infact the people from all communities have been worshipping the deity of the said temple from time immemorial. However, the eighth respondent community claims exclusive right over the temple without any basis. Further, the eighth respondent has decided to conduct Kumbabishekam in the month of January 2016 without having financial aid from the community of the petitioner as well as the other communities. When the Peace Committee Meeting was held on 18.06.2015 in which it was agreed that the representatives of the other communities can take part in the Kumbabishekam, in which, the eighth respondent is also a signatory to the said Peace Committee Meeting. Pursuant to the same, Balalayam was conducted. Thereafter, the eight respondent, giving the go-by for the order passed in Peace Committee Meeting, is now refusing for participation of the representatives from other communities in the Kumbabhisegam. The official respondents wantonly refuse to create a Thirupani Committee. The Hon''ble Apex Court has already held that the subject temple is a public temple. When that being so, the Rajus community alone cannot have any exclusive right over the temple. Further, the subject temple is put up in a Government poramboke land. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court as to the invitation printed for the festivals of the subject temple, on earlier occasions, to state that for each community preference was given to conduct the celebrations of the festival, on a particular day. However, by proceedings dated 07.12.2006, the eighth respondent through his Trust Board obtained permission to conduct Kumbabishekam without representatives from the community of the petitioner as well as people from the other community. Having agreed upon the decision taken in the Peace Committee Meeting that the petitioner as well as the other community people will be part of the celebrations and festivities, the respondents, more particularly, the eighth respondent cannot go back on their words.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the eighth respondent by inviting the attention of this Court submitted that though the Apex Court has held that the temple is a public temple, in the said judgment, it has been observed that the management of the said temple is religious domination of Rajus. Since it is a public temple, every body can come and worship and there is no hindrance to it. However, the petitioner as well as the people belonging to other communities cannot be a member of the Thirupani Committee. Since 2006 onwards, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has been issuing various proceedings with regard to the subject temple in favour of the eighth respondent community and none of the proceedings were challenged either by the petitioner or by anybody. Further, the Trust Board has decided to perform Kumbabishekam only by collecting the amount from specified donors. Therefore, there is no collection of money from any public or forming of a Thirupani committee consisting of the petitioner community as well as the other community people. No doubt, the eighth respondent has signed the Peace Committee Meeting. He was forced to sign in the said Peace Committee Meeting prior to the date of Balalyalam. The eighth respondent has signed in the Peace Committee Meeting only with a view the Balalayalam has to be performed peacefully on the specified date. Further, by inviting the attention of this Court regarding Rule 53 of the Management and Preservation Rules, only if there is a need for donation, the question of formation of Thiruppani committee will arise. Further, by inviting Rule 14 of the Functioning of the Board of Trustees Rules, the learned counsel for the eighth respondent submitted that all matters relating to administration of the religious institution should be decided in the meetings of the Board of Trustees and not in the Peace Committee Meeting. Thus he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
12. The official respondents were put on notice on the above-said submissions made by either side.
13. An anxious consideration was given to the submissions made by all the parties.
14. Though very many contentions have been raised on the factual aspects of the case, in my considered opinion, the entire issue involved in this Writ Petition could be decided by formulating the following questions:-
(i) Whether the petitioner and other community people are having any right over the administration of the subject temple?
(ii) When the eighth respondent is one of the signatories to the resolution of the Peace Committee Meeting, whether any legal right has been accrued either to the petitioner community or to other community people to participate in the Kumbabishekam by forming a Thiruppani Committee?
15. As regards the first question, it is the assertive submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon''ble Apex Court has rendered a finding in the judgment dated 14.08.2001 made in C.A. No. 2417 of 1992 that the subject temple is a public temple. When that being so, the eighth respondent cannot have an exclusive right over the administration of the temple. In this situation, the act of the eighth respondent by receiving funds from the donors belonging to the eighth respondent community alone is illegal and contrary to the judgment made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Therefore, by forming a Thiruppani Committee, the representatives of the petitioner community as well as the other community people have to be allowed to conduct the Kumbabishekam to be conducted in the subject temple. However, on a careful perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court it could be seen that though the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the temple is a public temple, but the right of the management of the subject temple shall vest with Rajus community alone. It is further observed therein that the right of management of Rajus community shall not prevent the department from exercising such powers conferred upon them by law. When that being the categorical finding and the factual position of the issue, the petitioner community cannot claim any right, whatsoever, in the administration of the temple stating that the temple is a public temple and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that they too have right over the administration of the temple cannot be accepted. However, the petitioner community as well as the other community people can come and worship and also participate in the functions in the subject temple as a devotee. The right accrued to the petitioner community as well as the other community people, as a devotee, cannot be extended beyond what is actually available as per the judgment made in C.A. No. 2417 of 1992. Therefore, the first question is answered against the petitioner.
16. As regards the second question, it is the submission of the petitioner that in the Peace Committee Meeting held on 18.06.2015, a decision was taken to enable the petitioner community as well as the other community people to form a ''Thiruppani Committee'' with four representatives from each community to conduct the festival. The eighth respondent, who is the President of the Administrative Trust Committee is one of the signatories to the Peace Committee Meeting. Therefore, now the eighth respondent cannot go back on the decision taken in the Peace Committee Meeting. But it is the reply of the learned counsel for the eighth respondent that the Peace Committee Meeting was held on 18.06.2015 and the Balalayam was to be performed on 19.06.2015. Since the Balalayam was to be performed without any hindrance and the official respondents had pressurised the eighth respondent to sign in the Peace Committee Meeting for performing Balalayam peacefully, and hence, he had no option but to sign in the Peace Committee Meeting at the eleventh hour.
17. However, I find that irrespective of the submissions of the eight respondent, the Peace Committee Meeting will not have any statutory force. If any statutory force is available, this Court can give a direction to the eighth respondent to comply with the said decision taken in the Peace Committee Meeting. Further, I find that Kumbabishekam is going to be conducted pursuant to the decision taken by the Administrative Trust Committee of the subject temple and not based on the resolution passed in the Peace Committee Meeting. When that being so, the decision arrived at the Peace Committee Meeting has no force. In this regard, an useful reference could be made as regards Section 14 of the Functioning of the Board of Trustees Rules, which reads as follows:-
"14. All matters relating to the administration of the religious institution shall be decided at the meetings of the Board of Trustees. The Executive Officer or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, shall carry into effect the decision of the Board of Trustees after obtaining the orders of the competent authority on individual subjects."
18. From the reading of the above-said rule, it could be seen that the matters relating to the administration of religious temple has to be done in the meeting of the Trust Board only. When that being so, the petitioner cannot seek remedy based on the resolution passed in the Peace Committee Meeting. Therefore, the second question also is answered against the petitioner.
19. That apart, since 2006 onwards, various orders have been passed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with regard to conducting of Kumbabishekam in favour of Administrative Trustee Committee. None of the orders have been challenged by the petitioner sofar.
20. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
