Skip to content


A. Muthuswami Pillai Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)1MLJ352
AppellantA. Muthuswami Pillai
RespondentThe Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the commissioner may, for good and sufficient cause, suspend, remove or dismiss the executive officer......the deputy commissioner of religious endowments at tanjore, as confirmed by the commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowments, madras, in a.p. no. 9 of 1956, in o.s. nos. 60 and 90 of 1956 on the file of the sub-court, madurai, and in a.s. nos. 156 and 182 of 1958 on the file of this court. however, certain differences of opinion and disputes seem to have arisen between the petitioner herein and the third respondent herein, with respect to the administration of the endowment, and, because of these differences, the petitioner applied to the deputy commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowments, madurai, for appointment of an executive officer and action on that application seems to have been taken by the commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowments,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Ismail, J.

1. The administration of Sri Nachiarammal Endowments, Vandiyur, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District, is governed by a scheme settled in O.P.No. 111 of 1953 before the Deputy Commissioner of Religious Endowments at Tanjore, as confirmed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, in A.P. No. 9 of 1956, in O.S. Nos. 60 and 90 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, and in A.S. Nos. 156 and 182 of 1958 on the file of this Court. However, certain differences of opinion and disputes seem to have arisen between the petitioner herein and the third respondent herein, with respect to the administration of the Endowment, and, because of these differences, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, for appointment of an Executive Officer and action on that application seems to have been taken by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, who by his order in R.C. No. 779/67-E.3, dated 1st February, 1967 made such an appointment. Meanwhile, all the persons interested in the Endowment, with a view to put an end to the quarrel, filed O.A.No. 3 of 1967 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, for the modification of the original scheme, and such a modification was ordered on 4th April, 1967. Thus it will be seen, that the Commissioner passed an order appointing an Executive Officer before the modification of the Scheme was effected by the Deputy Commissioner on 4th April, 1967. Subsequent to the order of the Deputy Commissioner modifying the scheme the petitioner herein filed an application before the Commissioner, purporting to be under Section 45 (4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, for removing the Executive Officer so appointed on the ground that the presence of an executive Officer is no longer necessary, in view of the quarrels between the parties having been settled and the scheme itself having been amended. The Commissioner, by order dated nth September, 1967 took the view that such an order, as asked for by the petitioner, could not be passed under Section 45 (4) of the Act. It is to quash this order of the Commissioner the present writ petition has been filed.

2. In my opinion, the order of the Commissioner, in so far as it relied on Section 45 (4) of the Act, is correct and does not call for any interference. Section 45 (4) states:

The Commissioner may, for good and sufficient cause, suspend, remove or dismiss the executive officer.

The power to suspend, remove or dismiss an Executive Officer conferred and contemplated by this section is one to do so by way of punitive action or disciplinary action against the Executive Officer. The power to revoke or cancel an earlier order appointing an Executive Officer, which will result in the removal of the Executive Officer is not one contemplated by Section 45 (4) of the Act. Consequently the order of the Commissioner, in so far as he has held that Section 45 (4) of the Act does not contemplate such an order, is correct and does not call for interference. Therefore, the writ-petition fails and is dismissed. I am making it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition is solely based upon the interpretation of Section 45 (4) and it will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, or any other person interested in the Endowment, to approach the Commissioner either under Section 23 of the Act or any other provision of law, under which they could ask for a revocation or cancellation of his order dated 1st February, 1967 appointing an Executive Officer on the ground that the need for appointing such an Executive Officer no longer subsists. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //