CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to quash a show-cause notice issued to the Velukurichi Mutt head Sri La Sri Sathya Gnana Mahadeva Desika Paramachariya Swamigal over alleged mismanagement of the ‘kattalai’ (endowment) and properties of the Tiruvarur Thiyagarajaswami temple.
The show-cause notice was issued by the commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department in 2002 over the mismanagement of the properties falling under the supervision of Abisheka Kattalai and Annadanam Kattalai, for which the Velukurichi Mutt head is the sole hereditary trustee.
A writ petition was filed against the show-cause notice by the current petitioner’s father, who was the mutt head when the notice was issued. The current petitioner became the mutt head after his father’s death.
In the meantime, the commissioner amended the notice in 2010; so was the prayer of the petition.
The judge noted the Abhisheka Kattalai and Annadhana Kattalai possessed 3,900 acres of land as of 1937. However, over the years 2,600 acres was lost and it was left with only 1,300 acres.
The judge negated the arguments that no reason was provided in the show-cause and the petitioner has a ‘beneficial interest’ in the trust. “The payment of honorarium or varisai is a matter of prestige and honour attached to the office (trust) and cannot be regarded as beneficial interest in the trust.”
Stating that the petitioner’s right is akin to that of the Dharmakartha in administering the property alone, Justice Chakravarthy said that if any mismanagement is alleged, it is the petitioner’s responsibility to provide an explanation regarding it and orders must be issued based on the evidence.
“Thus, I conclude the respondent authorities possess the jurisdiction and a basis to issue the impugned show-cause notice under section 71 and 72 of HR&CE Act, 1959,” he said.
The judge directed the petitioner to raise all his objections and defences regarding the alleged mismanagement, non-cooperation and occupation of the properties by third parties by submitting a fresh explanation within four weeks and directed the commissioner to consider the explanations in accordance with the law by providing an opportunity of personal hearing.