Following objections raised by the petitioner citing earlier orders, the Tamil Nadu government has told the court that the impugned order to construct resorts in Othagamandalam (Ooty) in Nilgiris district at an estimated cost of Rs. 14 crore was withdrawn. The Madras High Court ruled that the funds from the Pollachi Masaniamman temple cannot be used to build a resort in Ooty. The court ruled that temple funds can only be used for purposes specified in the HR&CE Act.
What us tragic is such go comes from every decent temple and for each go people have to go yo courts. Courts to see this. But won't pronounce order that such illegal orders will be considered contempt of court from now on as it's against multiple orders of court. https://t.co/N5XDOq3mLz
— NR (@NR_Tatvamasi) March 16, 2025
Petitioner P. Baskar of Guduvanchery, in his PIL petition, stated: “The Masani Amma temple is situated in Pollachi, Coimbatore, and is under the jurisdiction & administrative control of the Respondent HR & CE Department. The temple is dedicated to Goddess Masani Amman, and thousands of devotees visit the temple every day. It is a very famous temple in the area. It had fixed deposits of over Rs. 100 crores.
I submit that the aforementioned temple, amongst others, has lands and fixed deposits (FD) endowed by devotees for a dedicated, specific religious charitable purpose. The Topulan Chettiar Case of Srirangam Temple, decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, is squarely covered in this aspect and is directly applicable to the present case.”
He contended that: “First of all, the Respondents do not have the authority to break the temple funds’ Fixed Deposit without seeking objections from the devotees. Hence, either an Interim Stay has to be granted against the Impugned Order, or it would be better if the Impugned Order stands withdrawn in light of the aforementioned.”
The petitioner stated: “I came across a newspaper cutting dated 08.03.2025 from the Dinamalar newspaper, in which it was stated & reported that the Fixed Deposit, which consists of surplus funds in the account of Masani Amman temple, Pollachi, was to be utilised for the construction of a Tourist Resort in Ooty. Furthermore, the newspaper report also stated that the previous Trustees of the temple had also opposed & objected to the same. Despite these objections, the Respondents were proceeding with the construction of the Tourist complex in Ooty by breaking the Fixed Deposit.”
Counsel for the Petitioner, B. Jagannath, made a mention as a praecipe at 10:30 before the Learned First Bench, and the request was acceded to by the Learned First Bench. The matter was then taken up at 2:15. The said Impugned Order was passed, seeking to break the Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 15 crores from the surplus funds of Masani Amman Temple, Pollachi, under the control of the HR&CE Department. The First Respondent sought to construct a luxury resort in Ooty, Nilgiris, at Kandal, near a site belonging to the Subramanian Swamy temple, Ooty.
The petitioner said: “I submit that, as per Sections 36(1), 36, 66, and 66(1) of the Act, there can be no commercial transactions based upon surplus funds of the temple… Section 36B specifically states that any building/shed shall be constructed only for feeding the poor and the needy through Annadhanam, and nowhere in the Act does it state that construction should be undertaken for the purpose of a shopping or tourist complex. Furthermore, in the present case, objections and suggestions were not called for regarding temple funds, without following the provisions of the Act.”
Jagannath cited the previous order passed vide WP 19084 of 2024, dated 09.01.2025, in which the First Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, stated that either an Interim Stay would be issued or, better still, the Bench advised that the Impugned Order should be withdrawn. Accordingly, in all fairness, the Additional Advocate General stated that the Impugned Order would be withdrawn. Recording the same, the matter was closed.
Advocate Jagannath stated that surplus temple funds from Masani Amman temple were being utilised for the construction of a luxury resort in Ooty at Kandal. This was in violation of Sections 36, 36A, 66, and 66(1) of the HR&CE Act, the judgment made by this Honourable Court in WP 19084 of 2024 vide order dated 09.01.2025, and various other judgments of this Honourable Court, and thus, it could not be allowed.
Counsel for the Petitioner, J. Ravindran, Senior Advocate & Learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), appeared for the 1st Respondent. A. K. Sriram, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by R. Bharanidharan, Counsel for the 3rd & 4th Respondents (Masani Amman temple & HR&CE Department), appeared.
The aforementioned matter was filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking relief in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, challenging the Impugned Order issued by the 1st Respondent in the nature of a Government Order vide GO Ms 535 of 2024, dated 24.12.2024, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Tourism Department.
Accepting the submission that the GO would be withdrawn, the court stated that the matter was closed.
Comments