Read on Twitter
I just read through the short 22-page judgement delivered by The Hon'ble Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench in case of @trramesh vs TN HRCE regarding to Executive Office of Palani Murugan temple giving a contract for housekeeping. Judgement delivered on 22-09-2020 /1
has some far-reaching pronouncements
- It re-iterates the role of the Executive Officer, Fit Person and Trustees of a Temple as consolidated in Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, that is, the defining law with respect to conduct of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments /2
- It re-iterates the role of the Executive Officer, Fit Person and Trustees of a Temple as consolidated in Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, that is, the defining law with respect to conduct of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments /2
- The Bench upholds that the TN HRCE has a responsibility to constitute a Board of Trustees for each temple or religious institution under it's responsibility.
- The execution of all responsibilities of the Trustees can be entrusted to a Fit Person during a hiatus when Trust /3
- The execution of all responsibilities of the Trustees can be entrusted to a Fit Person during a hiatus when Trust /3
Board has been dissolved and a new Board is to be constituted. This could be because of resignation of trustees, death or charges pending against trustees for irregularity.
- However, the Bench has ruled, unambiguously, that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to carry /4
- However, the Bench has ruled, unambiguously, that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to carry /4
on indefinitely.
I am reproducing the very words from the judgement here
The Hon'ble Judge goes on to say
"It was already noted that Executive Officer was appointed for the second respondent temple originally under Madras Act 2 of 1927. Continuing the said arrangement /5
I am reproducing the very words from the judgement here
The Hon'ble Judge goes on to say
"It was already noted that Executive Officer was appointed for the second respondent temple originally under Madras Act 2 of 1927. Continuing the said arrangement /5
is illegal. The situation is aggravated by making him the exofficio Fit Person. This state of affairs has continued for a scandalously long period."
In conclusion, the Bench passes an order "I cannot stop with that. Certain consequential directions have to be issued. /6
In conclusion, the Bench passes an order "I cannot stop with that. Certain consequential directions have to be issued. /6
The State Government as well as the controlling authorities will take all possible steps to ensure that the board of trustees is constituted for the second respondent temple as early as possible."
What this means is
- All the 44121 temples under TN HRCE *must* be administered /7
What this means is
- All the 44121 temples under TN HRCE *must* be administered /7
by a Board of Trustees, with the Executive Officer serving as a Government check to stop malpractice.
Unless TN HRCE appeals this judgement in SC, it must carry out this order or the GoTN shall be held to be in contempt of court. By all means, this is a momentous judgement /8
Unless TN HRCE appeals this judgement in SC, it must carry out this order or the GoTN shall be held to be in contempt of court. By all means, this is a momentous judgement /8
Hearty congratulations to @trramesh sir and all his associates! Special thanks to @jsaideepak for helping me understand the legal implications /END
