Chennai: The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the order of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department for taking over the administration of Ayodhya Mandapam and for appointing a ‘Fit Person’ to look into the administration of the Sri Ram Samaj.

Ayodhya Mandapam was one of the famous landmark spiritual centres at West Mambalam area in the city and was being administered by the Sri Ram Samaj for decades.

On an appeal filed by the Ram Samaj, challenging single judge order dismissing the writ petition filed in 2014 against the takeover of the Ayodhya Mandapam HR&CE department and appointing a ‘Fit Person’ to take over the administration of the temple, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy also set aside Single Judge order.

The court directed the department to handover the administration of the Ayodhya Mandapam to the Samaj along with all the records.

While giving further liberty to the department to conduct a fresh enquiry and proceed in the manner afresh after following the due procedure of law, the court also directed the appellant Samaj to maintain the books of accounts after proper audit.

The Samaj was also directed to carry out all its transactions through banks so that all the transactions are accounted for and can be called for if required.

The court opined that the single judge had not considered the merits of the case and merely dismissed the petition citing existence of alternative remedies.

According to the court, in exceptional circumstances, the court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a petition even when alternative remedies are available.

In the present case, what was challenged by the Samaj was the manner in which the order was order was passed by the department.

The court also opined that the HR&CE order was passed without following the procedures of natural justice. The notice sent by the Department did not disclose the details of the allegations levelled against the Samaj. Further, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Samaj. The department passed the orders merely stating that the Samaj was a public temple as per Section 6(20) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 as it fulfilled the conditions stated in the Act. The Department had also failed to look into the objectives of the Samaj and other activities carried out by the Samaj.

The court further stated that even going by the statement of the Advocate General that the educational institution and the marriage halls under the Samaj were unaffected by the takeover, it is clear that the Samaj was conducting other activities also.

The Samaj contended that Ayodhya Mandapam was not a temple and people were not worshipping in the Samaj. It was a society registered under the Society Registration Act and does not come within the definition of Temple under the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

The Single Judge, after hearing both the parties opined that the primary dispute was whether the Samaj is a public temple or not. After observing that the court could not decide upon this disputed question of fact, the court dismissed the petition citing alternative remedies. When the matter was taken up yesterday, the first division bench had criticised the approach of the single judge dismissing the plea on preliminary objections, after passage of eight years.

It said the takeover was erroneous and that the court would quash it.

Questioning the HR&CE department’s take over of the administration of the Ayodhya Mandapam, the First Bench said it would quash the orders of the department, and a single judge who dismissed a petition against the order
for taking over the facility.

When the appeal came up for hearing on Tuesday, senior counsel Sathish Parasaran, representing the Samaj, said the idols in the mandapam at West Mambalam were not consecrated to warrant action.

He blamed the concerned authorities for not following the procedures in a fair manner as they did not cite the allegations in the show cause notice, and failed to serve a copy of the complaint. He also questioned the single judge’s order dismissing the petition filed against the 2013 order of the HR&CE to take over the administration.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram countered his arguments and said the action was initiated following complaints from a former office-bearer regarding financial mismanagement at the mandapam.

He pointed out that the department’s action to issue orders to take over the facility was on the grounds that the mandapam carried out religious activities, installed idols, held worships, kept a hundial for collecting donations, and committed irregularities in the management of funds. Though they had a proper remedy (available through the department), the Samaj did not explore it, Shunmugasundaram noted.

However, the CJ asked what business the government has in a private hall, and further pointed to the show cause notice issued without details of allegations. Disagreeing with the AG’s arguments, he further stated a petition could not be dismissed citing ‘availability of remedy’ after keeping it for eight years. He said the orders of the department to take over the facility, and the order of Justice VM Velumani dismissing the petition would be set aside.

However, the government can hold a fresh inquiry by following due procedures and proceed further, he added.
The Ayodhya Mandapam was taken over by the HR&CE department recently amidst protests by devotees and BJP workers, after the single judge dismissed a writ petition filed by the Samaj against the order of the department passed in 2013. The 2013 order was based on allegations made by a former president of the Samaj.

The Madras High Court had on 31 March, dismissed a plea challenging an order of the HR&CE that appointed a person to take over administration of the mandapam. When officials came to take over the mandapam, members of the BJP staged a protest there on 11 April.