[08/04, 13:15] sekarreporter1: 1. WP 12656 of 2026. Item 4 for Admission before the Honourable First Bench. P. Baskar Vs State. Prayer :- WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records made in the Impugned Order issued by the 1’t respondent vide G.O.(D) No.15 dated 74.01.20″16 and QUASH the same as illegal, void and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents hereln not to break or operate the Fixed Deposit of the temple 2. Counsel for Petitioner- B. Jagannath, Learned Senior Advocate R. Shunmugasundaram for Respondents- assisted by R. Bharanidharan & Learned Senior Counsel AK Sriram for Hr and Ce Appeared. 3. Petitioner Counsel B. Jagannath stated that Masani Amman temple is a famous and landmark temple having fixed deposit of more than Rs.120 Crores and contravention to Section 46,47 of the Act Fit person- 5th Respondent has been appointed – Instead of appointment of trustees- that too when application form & notification was called for in March last year in paper publication for appointment of trustees for the temple. There’s nothing personal against the 5th Respondent – it’s a challenge to the appointment in light of legal infraction. The apprehension is that there is Rs120 Crores fixed deposit and that the Fixed Deposit cannot be used as last year during same period – Fixed deposit was sought to be broken for construction of luxury resort in Ooty -which was dropped due to timely intervention of the Petitioner in another last year. It’s been 1 year and till date no Trustees have been appointed. There can be no major policy decision taken without trustees appointment- FIT person cannot do so as per section 46,47,48 of the Act. 4. The Bench posed a question to the Respondents why Trustees are not appointed for 1 year- if that is so then what is the rationale for appointment of FIT Person now in 2026. 5.Per Contra – Learned Senior Advocate R. Shanmugasundaram – assisted by R. Bharanidharan stated that the appointment of FIT person is a temporary interim Stop Gap arrangement. It is only for a temporary period. The luxury resort proposal was dropped last year itself. There is no decision or proposal to break the Fixed Deposit till the appointment of Trustees. Furthermore, application form of trustees has been scrutinised – certain candidates have been identified and the Respondents after the election shall undertake promptly to appoint trustees in accordance with law. Hence the apprehension of the petitioner is allayed & answered accordingly. Also, appointment of Respondent 5 is only temporary in nature till trustees are appointed . After hearing the arguments from both sides , the Learned First Bench – stated that detailed orders will be passed. [08/04, 13:15] sekarreporter1: 👍👍
[08/04, 13:15] sekarreporter1: 1. WP 12656 of 2026. Item 4 for Admission before the Honourable First Bench. P. Baskar Vs State. Prayer :- WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records
made in the Impugned Order issued by the 1’t respondent vide
G.O.(D) No.15 dated 74.01.20″16 and QUASH the same as illegal, void
and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents hereln
not to break or operate the Fixed Deposit of the temple
2. Counsel for Petitioner- B. Jagannath, Learned Senior Advocate R. Shunmugasundaram for Respondents- assisted by R. Bharanidharan & Learned Senior Counsel AK Sriram for Hr and Ce Appeared.
3. Petitioner Counsel B. Jagannath stated that Masani Amman temple is a famous and landmark temple having fixed deposit of more than Rs.120 Crores and contravention to Section 46,47 of the Act Fit person- 5th Respondent has been appointed – Instead of appointment of trustees- that too when application form & notification was called for in March last year in paper publication for appointment of trustees for the temple. There’s nothing personal against the 5th Respondent – it’s a challenge to the appointment in light of legal infraction. The apprehension is that there is Rs120 Crores fixed deposit and that the Fixed Deposit cannot be used as last year during same period – Fixed deposit was sought to be broken for construction of luxury resort in Ooty -which was dropped due to timely intervention of the Petitioner in another last year. It’s been 1 year and till date no Trustees have been appointed. There can be no major policy decision taken without trustees appointment- FIT person cannot do so as per section 46,47,48 of the Act.
4. The Bench posed a question to the Respondents why Trustees are not appointed for 1 year- if that is so then what is the rationale for appointment of FIT Person now in 2026.
5.Per Contra – Learned Senior Advocate R. Shanmugasundaram – assisted by R. Bharanidharan stated that the appointment of FIT person is a temporary interim Stop Gap arrangement. It is only for a temporary period. The luxury resort proposal was dropped last year itself. There is no decision or proposal to break the Fixed Deposit till the appointment of Trustees. Furthermore, application form of trustees has been scrutinised – certain candidates have been identified and the Respondents after the election shall undertake promptly to appoint trustees in accordance with law. Hence the apprehension of the petitioner is allayed & answered accordingly. Also, appointment of Respondent 5 is only temporary in nature till trustees are appointed .
After hearing the arguments from both sides , the Learned First Bench – stated that detailed orders will be passed.
[08/04, 13:15] sekarreporter1: 👍👍
