CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the state government and the HR&CE department to file a counter-affidavit to a public interest litigation petition challenging an amendment made to the rules governing fixation of lease rent for temple properties based on guideline value.The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on Tuesday issued notice to the respondents and granted them four weeks to file their response.
The PIL was filed by TR Ramesh, president of Indic Collective Trust, challenging two G.Os issued by the department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments department amending the provisions relating to fixation of the lease rent for immovable properties of temples.
The petitioner stated the government omitted Rule 17 from the existing Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 while simultaneously introducing the 2026 rules without superseding the 1963 rules. The coexistence of two sets of rules governing the same subject has resulted in inconsistencies and ambiguities in the administration of temple properties, the petition said.
He said the amendment provides for taking into account the “guideline value” for fixation of lease rent instead of the “market value” provided for under section 34-A of the TN HR&CE Act, 1959 and restricting the market value to the guidelines undermines the Act’s mandate of fair rent for institutions. The petitioner stated that if the amended rules are implemented it will cause huge, monumental revenue loss to the temples.
Case against three HR&CE staff quashed
The Madras High Court has quashed the case against three employees of the HR&CE department over alleged misappropriation of Rs 2.96 lakh temple funds in Kanniyakumari for want of evidence. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan passed the orders on the petitions filed by S Rameshkumar, N Kuttalam and A Mohana Kumar who were charged under Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant sections of IPC for misappropriating the funds by hatching a criminal conspiracy, creating fake documents and fabricating bills. Concurring with the submissions of senior counsel Hasan Mohammed Jinnah appearing for the petitioners, the judge said in a recent order, “There is absolutely no oral or documentary evidence against the petitioners in order to substantiate the charges.” ENS
