Maha Thejo Mandala Sabha vs. The Executive Officer Sri Pamban Kumara Gurudasar Temple @ Sri Mayuranatha Temple

COURT NO.5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13980-13984/2024

(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 27-03-2024 in WA No. 2191/2018 27-03-2024 in WA No. 2316/2018 27-03-2024 in WA No. 2390/2018 27-03-2024 in CMP No. 9847/2019 in WA SR. NO. 48132/2019 27-03-2024 in WP No. 13141/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)

MAHA THEJO MANDALA SABHA ETC.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI PAMBAN KUMARA GURUDASAR TEMPLE @ SRI MAYURANATHA TEMPLE & ORS. ETC.Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.140574/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.140572/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and IA FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ No.140570/2024-PERMISSION TO ANNEXURES

IA No. 143303/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES)

Date: 11-07-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. C S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Sundar Ramanathan, AOR Mr. Eswaran, Adv. Mr. Krishan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Sivagnanam, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
  • Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. R. Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv.
  • Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv.
  • Mr. S Agilesh Kumar, Adv.
  • Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Heard Mr. C S Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the definition of "Religious Institution" as has been amended from time to time and the present definition that is in effect from 27.06.2012 in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The directions given in the impugned judgment are also perused which appears to be in the face of rival claims, for Management of the Institution.

3. Opportunities are expected to be given to all the claimants and the Department under the Act is then to take action. In fact notice is already issued to all the four rival claimants under Section 3 of the Act. We are therefore disinclined to entertain the present challenge. However, it is made clear that whatever Kumbhabhishegam is done in the interregnum the same will have no implication on the institution or on any of the contesting parties. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

2