MDIJ order temple case

[08/09, 16:24] Sekarreporter: Item 26 – Admission before MDIJ.

W.p.no.34136/2025 – Writ of Certiorari. Order impugned is the advertisement dated 11.08.2025 made in
Vide RC.No. 982/2022/B2 passed by the 3rd respondent, The
Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department, Salem pertaining to Arulmighu Velayuthaswamy Temple at Katteri Village, Sankaragiri, Salem. The Petitioner is a devotee of temple and Applicant in OA 15/2020. Previously, the Temple, without any scheme wherein devotees from all communities were appointed as trustees. Subsequently after 2008, scheme was framed by Hr and Ce Department which mandated that Trustees from Kongu Velllar community alone specifically in Katteri village shall be appointed as Trustees for temple. The amendment to Hr and Ce Act vide Section 49(1), made in November 2012, ensured that trustees from all communities including Schedule caste and women are appointed for equal representation in temple trusteeship. Subsequently OA15/2020, was filed by Petitioner as one of the Applicant aggrieved against the above scheme decree of 2008 & he sought to modify the scheme to the extent to which all community members are appointed as trustees to the temple. Since no action by Joint Commissioner, WP was filed in 2022, to dispose of OA & accordingly ordered by this Honourable Court to Joint Commissioner, Salem to dispose off OA within 4 weeks. Still no action despite aforementioned. Trusteeship period over in 15/06/2025 & various irregularities including mis appropriation of funds against previous trustees. Impugned Order passed mechanically – with advertisement calling for with previous 2008 scheme clause without disposal of OA. B. Jagannath, Learned Counsel appeared for Petitioner and SGP Hr and Ce Arun Natrajan appeared for all Respondents in Hr and Ce Department. Upon hearing detailed arguments by counsel for both parties & in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the Honourable Court directed the Respondents that the application called for by the Respondents through advertisement shall be subject to the outcome of the OA 15/2020 – Main WP disposed accordingly.
[08/09, 16:24] Sekarreporter: Fulcrum of argument by counsel for petitioner was that caste based discrimination shouldn’t be there in Appointment of trustees & SC & Women shouldn’t be left out in Trusteeship appointment especially after 2012 Amendment