Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash (Cell No.9444395654) (ii) Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha (Cell No.9444454545) (ii) AAB Associates, No.5, Nachiappan Street, Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai (Mr.Anantharaman and Mr.Arun Balaji Anantharaman Cell No.9952900897) DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. sl CMP.No.10999 of 2025 and O.S.A.No.475 of 2002

2025:MHC:2127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CMP.No.10999 of 2025 in O.S.A.No.475 of 2002
CMP.No.10999 of 2003:
K.Thangaraj … Petitioner/Appellant
vs.
1. R.Hariharan
2. G.Balakrishnan
3.All India Sai Samaj represented by its President, 56-B, Alamelumangapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
4.M.Vasudevan,
Secretary,
All India Sai Samaj, Chennai-600 004.
5.T.R.Kulasekaran
6.S.Karunakaran
Vice President, All India Sai Samaj, Chennai-600 004.
7.Sri Vidyalaya Educational Trust represented by its
Managing Trustee, S.Karunakaran
8.Veeraraghavan
9.S.Subramaniam … Respondents/Respondents
Prayer in CMP.No.10999 of 2003: Petition filed to clarify the order dated 17.3.2003 in the above O.S.A.No.475 of 2002.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balagopal
For Respondents : Mr.M.Balasubramanian
ORDER
(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
Read this order in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier orders, particularly Orders dated 04.08.2025 and 11.08.2025 that read thus:
We have heard Mr.J.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for R1 and R2. The matter concerns the management of the All India Sai Samaj (AISS) a registered society managing the Sai Baba Temple at Mylapore.
2.The Original Side Appeal had been disposed on 17.03.2003 and several directions had been issued by the Bench. Thereafter, one of the respondents had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking modification of the directions. When the matter was listed before us a few weeks ago, we had sought the status of compliance in regard to the directions issued by the Bench and the petitioner, who is stated to be the Secretary of the All India Sai Samaj (Regd.), at present, had sought time to file a report.
3. Status report dated 23.07.2025 has been filed and a reply dated 28.07.25 has also been filed by the respondents. A reading of the aforesaid Report and Reply reveal that there has been little, if any compliance, with the directions issued.
4. Each direction of the Bench in order dated 17.03.2003, (highlighted in bold), and the present status of compliance with that direction as per the status report are itemised below:
’17. …………..
The appeal is disposed of with the following direction :
. . . .
(2) No new member can be admitted to the third respondent Samaj without prior permission of the learned trial Judge.
Said to be complied per para 3 of status report
(3) Whenever the Hundi is to be opened, the same shall be done in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore.
Hundial counting is not being done in the presence of police officials as was directed. The hundials are presently stated to be opened in the presence of volunteers and members of the public. The appellant states that the same is being videographed and books maintained.
(4) The elected body is directed to submit the statement of accounts once in three months before this Court in the suit C.S. 44 of 2001.
Though account statements were directed to be produced every three (3) months, accounts have been filed only once and thereafter not at all.
(5) The advocate commissioner is to record the statement from the tenants in occupation of 38 shops with the details of rental advance paid, rent being paid and period of default as well as the arrears etc.,
(6) The advocate commissioner is further permitted to conduct the public auction in respect of 38 shops belonging to the Samaj and the highest bidder is to get the lease. The period of lease must be for three years. After the expiry of the said period of three years, once again the auction has to be conducted for fresh leases.
(7) In the auction, all the present lessees except the relatives of the elected office bearers and the priests as well as the employees of the third respondent Samaj can participate. In future when the election is to be held for the office bearers, the relatives of the tenants shall not contest or participate in the election for the office bearers of the third respondent Samaj.
(8) As soon as the auction is over, the unsuccessful lessees who are in possession of the shops must vacate within 30 days from the date of the confirmation of the auction by the High Court.
No compliance as admitted in paragraphs 8 to 11 of status report. The erstwhile tenants thus continue and it is unknown as to whether rents are being paid by them and the quantum of such rent.
(9) The respondents 6 and 7 are to submit the accounts with regard to the management of the school to the advocate commissioner who in turn has to scrutinise the same with the assistance of the chartered accountant along with the accounts submitted by the respondents 5 and 6 in accordance with the order of the learned Judge. The respondents 6 and 7 are directed to submit the accounts in respect of the school from the date of taking over the management by them.
(11) The direction issued by the learned Judge in respect of the school viz., Sai Vidyalaya Educational Trust shall also stand.
The parties were directed to submit accounts in respect of a school run by the Sai Vidyala Educational Trust. It is unknown as to whether the Sai Vidyala Educational Trust is connected in any way to the All India Sai Samaj. In appears that the school has been demolished and no details have been produced in connection therewith.
(10) The elected members are directed to comply with the request of the Advocate Commissioner regarding the expenses he has to incur in the processing of auditing the accounts by the auditor.
At paragraph 13 it is stated that an auditor has been appointed and accounts are being maintained and filed before the Income tax authority from 2005 till date.
5. We had vide order dated 24.07.2025 directed that the Chartered Accountant appointed by the Samaj submit (i) finalised accounts for the last five years (ii) copy of the bye-laws of Sai Samaj. Reports of the Auditor dated 31.03.2019, 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021, 31.03.2022, 31.03.2023 and 31.03.2024 have been filed.
6. However, the Reports seem to contain at least one serious omission. In the course of the hearings, it has been brought to our notice that a loan of Rs.15 crores has been taken by appellant from the Union Bank of India by mortgaging temple property. Memo dated 04.08.2025 has been filed by R1 in this regard.
7. This loan does not appear to find place in the accounts submitted by the Chartered Accountant. There are also allegations by the respondent that a Kalyana Mandapam has been built by the appellant at a cost of Rs.40 crores. The sources of these funds are unknown and the accounts contain no details in this regard.
8.Under memo dated 04.08.2025 it has been said that the statute of Sai Baba originally consecrated in the temple has been removed by using a JCB and the Gopuram of the temple has also been dismantled. It remains to be seen as to whether these acts have been taken after following due procedure as per the bye-laws and whether necessary resolutions have been passed in the general body meetings in this regard.
9. We are very pained to find that there is hardly any compliance with the directions of this Court, and in fact, matters have radically deteriorated since then. The matter involves the assets of a Society in receipt of huge public funds as the accounts before us reveal.
10. The serious omissions in the accounts produced before us, coupled with the admitted non-compliance with the directions of this Court issued in 2003 makes one thing very clear. The affairs of the Samaj have to be looked into, regularised and the assets and funds of the Society secured.
11. For this purpose, we have requested Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash, Former Judge of this Court, to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the affairs of the All India Sai Samaj including but not restricted to
(i) the issues identified by this Court in its order dated 17.03.2003 and compliance therewith
(ii) manner of election of the Board over the years and whether the same is in line with the bye-laws
(iii) complete financials of the AISS till date and all financial transactions, receipts and payments
12.M/s.AAB Associates (Mr.Anantharaman and Mr.Arun Balaji), Chartered Accountants will assist Hon’ble Mr.JusticeP.N.Prakash.
13.A copy of this order be issued immediately to the Hon’ble Judge and Chartered Accountants. The present office bearers of All India Sai Samaj will contact the Hon’ble Judge forthwith to take things forward. Preliminary fees of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Hon’ble Judge and Rs.50,000/- to the Chartered Accountant will be paid by the AISS.
14.The matter is next listed on 11.08.2025, when a preliminary communication/confirmation is requested from the Hon’ble Judge in regard to the status of the proceedings.
Order dated 11.08.2025
We have heard Mr.J.Balagopal, for the petitioner and Mr.M.Balasubramanian, for R1 and R2. Mr.E.V.Chandru, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the learned Hon’ble Judge, appointed under order dated 04.08.2025.
2. We are given to understand that the Office Bearers of All India Sai Samaj (AISS) have not contacted the Hon’ble Judge to take things forward as directed at paragraph 13 of order dated 04.08.2025.
3. Hence there is a direction to the present Board Members viz., per the tabulation below and as supplied now by Mr.Balagopal, to meet Hon’ble Mr.Justice (Retd) P.N.Prakash at No.6, Gopal Menon Street, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai on 13.08.2025 at 5.00 p.m., with all requisite material related to the functioning of the AISS, including but not restricted to the books of accounts, statutory registers and other relevant documents, to enable commencement of the exercise as directed under order dated 04.08.2025.
Sl.No Post held by Members Name(s)
1 President A.Selvaraj
2 Vice President Uma Shankar Babu N
3 Vice President Deenan Raj K
4 Secretary K.Thangaraj
5 Joint Secretary Harish.A
6 Treasurer Damodaran.V.C.
7 Committee Member Ashok Kumar.A
8 Committee Member Gowri Kumar. V
9 Committee Member Sainath.M
10 Committee Member Palani. M
11 Committee Member Bhaskar.C
12 Committee Member Trilochan. A
13 Committee Member Kumaravel. M
14 Committee Member Eswaran.S.A
15 Committee Member Ramesh.K
4. Registry to forthwith handover to Mr.E.V.Chandru, learned counsel, a copy of i) order dated 17.03.2003 passed in the OSA, ii) Status report of the petitioner dated 23.07.2025, iii) reply of respondents dated 28.07.2025 and iv) typed set filed by the petitioner, dated 30.07.2025 for onward transmission to the Hon’ble Judge.
5. List on 25.08.2025. Hon’ble Judge is requested to furnish a preliminary report by then.
2. On 25.08.2025, we had been furnished with the detailed report dated
22.08.2025 of Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash with the assistance of M/s.AAB Associates, Chartered Accountants. The report reflects a disturbing set of events to say the least. After setting out the introduction, the Hon’ble Judge has stated that the dispute had originated from the management of the school started on land adjacent to the temple.
3. All was well till about 2000 when one Karunakaran had taken over the Sai Samaj and floated a Trust by name Sai Vidyalaya Educational Trust. The school was removed from the auspices of the All India Sai Samaj (AISS) and brought under the Sai Vidyalaya Educational Trust.
4. There is no information as to the formation of the aforesaid Trust andwhether it had been done with the approval of the General Body and the then Executive Committee. Be that as it may, this incident had led to C.S.No.44 of 2001 being filed by two devotees seeking a framing of a scheme for the management of the temple.
5. The report reveals that all interim orders passed in that suit had been subject to challenge upto the Supreme Court by the aforesaid Karunakaran. Interim orders had been passed by the learned Judge in A.No.2506 of 2001 in C.S.No.44 of 2001, challenging which, O.S.A.No.475 of 2002 had come to be filed and while disposing that O.S.A, several directions had been given by the Division Bench on 17.03.2003.
6. The present Secretary of the Trust who is arrayed as D7 in C.S.No.44 of 2001 has filed the present C.M.P 10999 of 2003 seeking various clarifications in order dated 17.03.2003. Incidentally, the present Secretary is the nephew of the said Karunakaran.
7. In A.No.5172 of 2007 in C.S.No.44 of 2001, the learned single Judge had constituted a Committee of two members, Justice Malai Subramanian, Retired Judge of this Court and Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate and Former
Advocate General to oversee the management of AISS. The aforesaid order had been challenged and confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.324 of 2007 on 29.10.2008.
8. A report had been filed by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan on 25.06.2009, wherein the following observations were made, as extracted by the Hon’ble Judge in his report:
‘This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decide appointment of an interim administrator after the tenure of the present office-bearers so that the advocate commissioner and myself can cooperate with the administrator, if necessary, to set right the deficiencies. Therefore, so long as Mr. K. Thangaraj remains as secretary of the Samaj, we will not be able to perform our duties as directed by this Hon’ble Court.’
9. Pursuant to this report, the matter was carried in Civil Appeal Nos.6080 and 6081 of 2011 at the instance of Mr.K.Thangaraj and the order of the Division Bench dated 29.10.2008 had been stayed on 23.03.2009. The Civil Appeals were disposed by the Supreme Court on 17.09.2019 with a request to the High Court to dispose C.S.No.44 of 2001 within 6 months. Incidentally, the suit is still pending before the learned single Judge.
10. The present CMP surfaced in July 2025 before this Bench and is now being decided by virtue of various orders culminating in the present order. The directions of the Bench when the OSA had been closed on 17.03.2003 have not been complied with as noticed in our earlier order dated 04.08.2025.
11. We now advert to each direction as ordered on 17.03.2003 and theobservations of the learned Judge Commissioner in seriatim:
(1)The elected office bearers of the third respondent Samaj i.e., the appellant and the respondents 8 and 9 are to take over the administration of the Samaj in accordance with the bye laws.
(2)No new member can be admitted to the third respondent Samaj without prior permission of the learned trial Judge.
12. These are the only directions which the elected body has complied with over the years. As per the report submitted by the Hon’ble Judge, compliance with these directions suited the elected body as they could continue to manage matters with the small coterie of persons essentially being their own relatives and no new persons had been admitted to membership.
(3)Whenever the Hundi is to be opened, the same shall be done in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore.
(4) The elected body is directed to submit the statement of accounts once in three months before this Court in the suit C.S. 44 of 2001.
13. These conditions have not been complied with. We are thus unable to ascertain the proper tally of collections over the years. The report of the Hon’ble
Judge also supports this position.
ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
12. The accounts of the Sai Samaj are being maintained by one Prabhu who is none other than the brother-in-law of Thangaraj. We have received numerous complaints of financial impropriety against him and also that he has purchased huge properties, both movable and immovable by siphoning of funds. There is no internal audit system which is essential for a public institution which receives huge donations in cash and kind. Though the account books are maintained by the said Prabhu, the book-keeping is being done by the staff of the auditor M/s. G.Ravi Shankar Associates. Thus, there is no maker and checker system of audit in Sai Samaj.
14. Under the head ‘Bank Loan’, the Hon’ble Judge has recorded that the land on which the Sai Vidyalaya School stood was retrieved and the old building that stood there was demolished in the year 2019. The Committee members thereafter decided to construct the Kalyana Mandapam for commercial purposes.
15. The report reveals that the Committee members were unable to confirm whether the construction of Kalyana Mandapam was proper as per the Bye-laws of the Sai Samaj. Therefore, it appears that the construction was carried out without the resolution by the Executive Committee or the General Body.
16. That apart, the land has been mortgaged with the Union Bank of India on 30.05.2023 for obtaining a loan of Rs.15.00 crores for construction of the Kalyana Mandapam. We are unaware as to what land has been mortgaged. The documents in relation to the sanction of the loan have not been produced. Sources for repayment of the loan, as on date, are only the Hundi collections and donations from the public. Hence, the entire transaction of loan and the mortgage of the Trust property is contrary to the interests of Trust and constitutes mismanagement of the Trust property and Trust funds.
17. The contract for construction of the Kalyana Mandapam at an estimated cost of Rs.20.00 crores has been given to a proprietary concern called M/s.Evolution Design Studio. The Hon’ble Judge has found that no approval by the Executive Committee or General Body for the grant of this order has been obtained as per the records seen by him. No competitive quotes appear to have been obtained as would have been ideal.
18. The Hon’ble Judge had inspected the site and found a five storey
Kalyana Mandapam, which, he says, is 70% complete. He has also conversed with Mr.Aravind of M/s.Evolution Designs Studio and obtained particulars of the construction. We are of the view that the entire sequence of events, for the grant of orders for construction of the Kalyana Mandapam and thereafter, has not been done in a proper manner, particularly since it involves the property of a public trust and huge funds mostly comprising donations and public contributions by way of Hundi collections.
19. Under the head ‘Demolition of the Main Temple’, the Hon’ble Judge has stated that the Main Temple itself has been demolished and construction of the same is on-going at a cost of Rs.20.00 crores, also by M/s.Evolution Designs Studio. This assignment has also not been approved by the Executive Committee or the General Body. The Hon’ble Judge expresses apprehensions of the competence of the M/s.Evolution Designs Studio to undertake these projects and has also raised a note of caution, that there is nothing on record to show that due diligence required prior to awarding these huge contracts have been followed.
20. It is to be noted that both the Temple as well as the Kalyana Mandapam will see a significant amount of footfall as places that the public will frequent, and it is imperative that the technical competence of the contractor ought to have been assessed prior to awarding the contracts.
21. 26 acres of agricultural lands have been purchased in Acharapakkam in 2021-2023 at a cost of Rs.3.7 crores. The Report does not refer to the documents for these lands having been secured by the Hon’ble Judge. Again, no resolutions are available for such expenditure or the purchase. The sources of these funds appear to be from Hundi collections and donations from public as the accounts produced do not indicate any other sources that would be adequate for such expenditure. The purchase has been, as per the income and expenditure accounts for 2022-23 and 2023-24, Rs.35.55 lakhs and Rs.28.92 lakhs respectively, apart from Rs.2.00 crores spent on construction upon those lands.
22. Permission of the Court has not been obtained for such purchases andthe Report states that the AISS is spending around Rs.30.00 lakhs per year for maintaining those lands. Prima facie, the observations made by the Hon’ble Judge are to the effect that the transactions are dubious and the money collected from the devotees has been diverted.
23. Under the head ‘Non-Accounting of donations in kind’, the Hon’ble
Judge has stated as follows:
NON-ACCOUNTING OF DONATIONS IN KIND
13. The Sai temple receives funds from the following sources:
a. Hundi collections – both cash and kind
b. Counter collections in cash and kind, for which receipts have to be issued
c. Offerings made by devotees to the priests during aarthi (plate collections)
d. Offerings in kind like rice, daal, ghee, milk, jaggery, sugar, dry fruits etc., given by devotees for annadhanam. Normally, such offerings should be valued and accounted in the books. This is not being done. When we conducted a random check, we were surprised to note that separate payments were being made for purchase of ghee to a firm by name M/s. RR Enterprises owned by the wife of Thangaraj to a tune of Rs.10 lakhs per month. For purchasing any article by a public institution, first an indent should be prepared and sent to the supplier, who would thereafter supply the article. The quantity of the article so received will be checked with the indent and only thereafter payment will be made. This process is not being followed at all and instead payments have been made to M/s. RR Enterprises directly even without an indent. In other words, it is not known whether M/s RR Enterprises had really supplied the ghee for the payment received by them. It should be noted that huge quantity of ghee comes as donation from devotees, which as stated earlier is not being accounted.
24. Under the head ‘Absence of Standard Operating Procedure’, the Hon’ble Judge has recorded that the temple has received around Rs.80.00 lakhs per month in Hundi collections. Proper accounts have not been produced in support of the receipts and expenditure. The narration in the Report reads:
(5) The advocate commissioner is to record the statement from the tenants in occupation of 38 shops with the details of rental advance paid, rent being paid and period of default as well as the arrears etc.,
(6) The advocate commissioner is further permitted to conduct the public auction in respect of 38 shops belonging to the Samaj and the highest bidder is to get the lease. The period of lease must be for three years. After the expiry of the said period of three years, once again the auction has to be conducted for fresh leases.
(7) In the auction, all the present lessees except the relatives of the elected office bearers and the priests as well as the employees of the third respondent Samaj can participate. In future when the election is to be held for the office bearers, the relatives of the tenants shall not contest or participate in the election for the office bearers of the third respondent Samaj.
(8) As soon as the auction is over, the unsuccessful lessees who are in possession of the shops must vacate within 30 days from the date of the confirmation of the auction by the High Court.
25. Under the head ‘Shops’, the Hon’ble Judge has stated as follows:
SHOPS
15. There are totally 38 shops in the complex which fetches a paltry income of Rs. 4 lakhs per annum which works out to Rs.875/- per month, per shop. Most of the lessees are in huge arrears as they have sublet the shop to others and collecting market rent from the sub-lessees. The Executive Committee has not taken any steps to vacate them. We went on inspection of the shopping complex and were shocked to find that the entire complex is in a dilapidated state and may cave in any time, resulting in loss of life. That is because, the building is not only a very old structure, but a huge tree has grown amidst the structure with its roots sprawling beneath the foundation. In fact, the Corporation of Chennai should have taken steps to have the building demolished so that there is no loss of life.
26. Direction 7 of the 2003 order relates to elections of office bearers and the Bench has directed that the relatives of the tenants shall not participate in the election. We are unaware of whether the occupants of the shops as at present are relatives of the present office bearers.
27. Direction 9 relates to the management of the school, which has been demolished. As far as maintenance of accounts is concerned, we have already dealt with the same in detail in paragraphs 12 to 23 supra. The other directions, viz., 10 to 12 are also extracted below, in the interests of completion.
(10) The elected members are directed to comply with the request of the Advocate Commissioner regarding the expenses he has to incur in the processing of auditing the accounts by the auditor.
(11) The direction issued by the learned Judge in respect of the school viz., Sai Vidyalaya Educational Trust shall also stand.
(12) The advocate commissioner is directed to file the report before the trial court and get suitable direction, if any. No cost.
28. The result of the elections for 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021 and2024 have been set out by the Hon’ble Judge and we find that the same names repeat themselves again and again. The observations in regard to the elections and the list of office bearers are set out below:
ELECTIONS
7. It appears that at one time there were 5,600 members in the General Body of Sai Samaj. At present, the total membership is 522, of which only around 50 are active members. The modus operandi of Karunakaran has been inherited by his nephew who has packed the active membership with his own relatives and friends. According to the bye-laws of the Sai Samaj, elections should be held every 3 years. In order to project that the elections were free and fair, the committee members would request the services of retired Judges to conduct the elections. These elections observers were not appointed by orders of Court. These election observers conducted elections based on the electoral rolls that were packed with the yes-men of the committee members and declared the results. This is apparent from the following table:
Elections Office Bearers
2006 President – Balasundaram
Secretary – Thangaraj
Treasurer – Selvaraj
2009 President – Thangaraj
Secretary – Balasundaram
Treasurer – Selvaraj
2012 President – Thangaraj
Secretary – Selvaraj
Treasurer – Balasundaram
2015 President – Balasundaram
Secretary – Thangaraj
Treasurer – Selvaraj
2018 President – Thangaraj
Secretary – Selvaraj
Treasurer – Uma Shankarababu
2021 President – Thangaraj
Secretary – Selvaraj
Treasurer – Uma Shankarbabu
2024 President – Selvaraj
Secretary – Thangaraj
Treasurer – V.C.Damodaran
Only 40 members of the General Body participated in the 2024 elections, out of whom Thangaraj’s brothers and his kinsmen were 15 in number. On the flipside, these elections appear to be closely modelled on elections held by dictators in Banana Republics.
29. Under the head ‘Legal and Professional expenses’, the Hon’ble Judge has stated as follows:
LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES
17. The audited income and expenditure accounts shows that Sai
Samaj has spent Rs.75,43,000/- for the FY 2022-23 and
Rs.56,89,000/- for the FY 2023-24 towards legal expenses. The trial balance (unaudited) for the FY 2024-25 recovered from the computer system of Sai Samaj shows that a sum of Rs.1,16,13,300/- has been spent towards legal expenses. In other words, the donations given by devotees have been used by the Committee to protect their individual positions. The allegation in the scheme suit is against the individual committee members to defend which they are using the funds of the Samaj, which is yet another case of criminal breach of trust. Afterall, in a scheme suit, the Court would frame a fair scheme for the administration of the institution. No one can have any serious objection to it, unless there is vested interest.
30. A reading of the above leads us no doubt that the financial transactionsof the Sai Samaj are in shambles. The sources of funds could only be from the Hundi collections and donations, and it is unfortunate that such large sums of money have been spent without any checks and balances, or approvals obtained from the Executive Committee or this Court.
31. We also emphasise that the Petitioner, and the Secretary of the present committee of the AISS has, in their own report acceded to not having complied with the direction of this Court. The abridged accounts produced before this Court contain discrepancies that now stand corroborated by the Report of the Hon’ble Judge. We have carefully studied the Report of the Hon’ble Judge that, under different heads, has set out the aberrations and defalcations by the Committee in charge now, and over the years. The Committee is a trustee of public funds, and significant funds at that.
32. In light of the narration as aforesaid, we are inclined to dissolve the Executive Committee of Sai Samaj and we do so with immediate effect. We constitute an Interim Administration Board (Board) comprising Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha and Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash, Former Judges of this Court, to administer and manage the AISS for a period of three months, to begin with. They will have the assistance of the Chartered Accountant, M/s.AAB Associates (Mr.Anantharaman and Mr.Arun Balaji) appointed under order dated 04.08.2025 and may kindly appoint appropriate persons for secretarial and general assistance.
33. The present office bearers are divested of their roles and duties with immediate effect and will hand over the administration and complete records of the AISS to the Board constituted under this Order forthwith. They are required to ensure their unstinted co-operation to facilitate a smooth transition of the administration.
34. The members of the committee that now stands dissolved will present themselves before the Board on Tuesday, the 2nd of September 2025 at 11 a.m. at the Temple premises, in order that the Board may obtain such information from them as necessary in the interests of a full enquiry. Needless to say, the Board has the full liberty to call upon such other individuals who have been in the management/associates of AISS from time to time, including, but not limited to Mr.Prabhu, as well as the Proprietor of M/s R.R.Enterprises and others.
35. The Board may also pursue the filing of police complaints where necessary to recoup and recover the amounts of the Sai Samaj that they believe have been diverted. They are at liberty to approach this Court in the interim for any clarifications/directions as deem fit.
36. We had under order dated 04.08.2025 directed a preliminary fee ofRs.2,00,000/- to be paid to Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash as well as Rs.50,000/to the Chartered Accountant. Likewise, a preliminary fee of Rs.2,00,000/- is payable to Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha as well.
37. With the above observations and directions, this Miscellaneous Petition is closed. List on 15.09.2025 at 2.15 p.m. under the caption ‘To receive interim Report of Hon’ble Board’ and for further orders. The Interim Administration Board is requested to file an interim report a day prior thereto in order that it may be put up in the bundle and place before the Court.
[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J]
29.08.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
sl
Note to Registry:This order be issued to :
(i) Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash (Cell No.9444395654)
(ii) Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha (Cell No.9444454545)
(ii) AAB Associates, No.5, Nachiappan Street, Mahalingapuram,
Nungambakkam, Chennai (Mr.Anantharaman and Mr.Arun Balaji Anantharaman Cell No.9952900897)
DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
sl
CMP.No.10999 of 2025 and O.S.A.No.475 of 2002
29.08.2025