In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the lease of 2.5 acres of land belonging to the Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to the Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore. The land is intended for a 25-year lease to establish an Arts and Science College, a move the court has deemed benevolent despite noted procedural irregularities.
The division bench, comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice C. Kumarappan, addressed the appeal filed by temple activist T.R. Ramesh. Ramesh contended that the leasing process did not fully comply with the procedural mandates outlined in Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959, and the associated Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules, 1960. Specifically, he argued that the public notice inviting objections lacked essential details as required under Clauses (c) and (f) of Rule 2, thereby hindering the public's ability to submit informed objections.
In their judgment, the bench acknowledged the existence of certain procedural lapses in the publication of the notice. However, they emphasized that the intended purpose of the lease—to establish an educational institution—served a greater public good that outweighed these infractions. The court observed, "No doubt there are certain procedural infractions in the publication that is impugned in the Writ Petition, but when the same are weighed with the advantages, the advantages definitely outweigh the procedural infractions." This perspective underscores the judiciary's inclination to prioritize substantive benefits over strict procedural adherence when the larger public interest is at stake.
Further, the court examined the language of Section 34 of the HR&CE Act and the corresponding rules, noting the absence of explicit consequences for non-compliance with procedural requirements. This absence led the bench to interpret the term "shall" within the provisions as directory rather than mandatory. They stated, "From the above judicial pronouncements, it is clear that the word 'shall' used in a statute or a rule can also be read as directory depending upon the object that is sought to be achieved by the enactment of the Rule, more so, when the Rule does not prescribe the consequence of failure to adhere to it." This interpretation provides a nuanced understanding of legislative language, allowing for flexibility in cases where rigid application might impede beneficial initiatives.
The initial challenge by Ramesh was addressed by a single judge, who declined to interfere with the lease, citing its benevolent objective. Dissatisfied, Ramesh escalated the matter, leading to the current appellate proceedings. Despite acknowledging the procedural shortcomings highlighted by the appellant, the division bench concurred with the single judge's assessment, emphasizing that the overarching benefits of establishing the college took precedence.
This ruling has broader implications for the management and utilization of temple properties in Tamil Nadu. It suggests that while procedural protocols are essential, they should not obstruct initiatives that serve the public interest, especially in sectors like education. The decision also reflects a judicial approach that balances strict legal compliance with pragmatic considerations of societal benefit.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court's decision to uphold the lease of temple land for the construction of an Arts and Science College highlights the judiciary's commitment to facilitating projects that offer substantial public advantages. By prioritizing the intended benevolent outcomes over procedural imperfections, the court has set a precedent that could influence future cases involving the allocation of religious institution properties for public welfare projects.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.