WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

PRONOUNCED ON : 05.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVEN
W.P.(MD)No.19004 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15366 & 15790 of 2017

M.Jagathalapradapan ...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
119, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner,

HR & CE Department,
Madurai – 1.

4.The District Collector,

Madurai District,
Madurai.

5.Madurai Adheenam Mutt

Rep. by its 292nd Madathipathi
Sri-la-Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasambanda Desika
Paramacharya Swamigal
No.70, South Avani Moola Street,
Madurai – 1.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

6.Sri-La-Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasambanda Desika

Paramacharya Swamigal
the 292nd Madathipathi of
Madurai Adheenam Mutt,
No.70, South Avani Moola Street,
Madurai – 1.

7.Sri-La-Sri Kumarasundara Sri Gnanasambanda Desika

Paramacharya Swamigal
the Chinnapandara Sannidhini / Iliya Sannidhanam /
Junior Pontiff the Successor to the 292nd
Madathipathi of Madurai Adeenam Mutt
No.70, South Avani Moola Street,
Madurai – 1.

8.Nithyananda @ Rajasekar,
Son of Late Arunachalam,
Nithiyananda Dhiyanapeetam
Adi Anna Malai,
Thiruvannamalai. ...Respondents

[Dismissed as against the first respondent,

by order dated 23.11.2017]

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to

take suitable and appropriate action against the 8th respondent and

protect the 5th respondent the Madurai Adheenam Mutt in the hands of

the 8th respondent in the lights of the petitioner's representation dated

29.09.2017 and 04.10.2017 and permanently prevent the 8th

respondent from interfering with the 5th respondent Mutt.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen,

Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 and R.4
Mr.Maharaja, SGP for R2 & R3
Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman for R.5 & R.6
No Appearance for R.7
Mr.A.Raghunathan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Elayaraja for R.8
*****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus,

directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the

eighth respondent and to protect the fifth respondent Mutt, by

considering the petitioner's representations dated 29.09.2017 and

04.10.2017 and to permanently prevent the eighth respondent from

interfering with the fifth respondent Mutt by an appropriate order by

this court.

2. The facts of the case, as averred in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition, are as follows:

2.1 According to the petitioner, he is the founder Trustee of

'Madurai Meenakshi Childrens Trust' and involved in various social and

http://www.judis.nic.in
 4

religious activities. He is the follower and worshipper of 292nd

Madathipathi of the fifth respondent Mutt, the sixth respondent herein

and the Junior Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam Mutt / seventh respondent

herein.

2.2 Apprehending that the eighth respondent, namely

Nithyananda @ Rajasekar, who is claiming to be the Head of Bhidathi

Ashram, Karnataka, is trying to trespass into the Adheenam Mutt,

despite the orders of this Court, thereby, attempting to swindle the

funds of the Mutt and to capture the properties and temples attached

thereto, the petitioner has submitted representations on 29.09.2017

and 04.10.2017, before the official respondents for necessary action

and because of their inaction, he is before this Court.

3. The sum and substance as well as the arguments put forth by

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

dispute arose in the year 2012 pursuant to the appointment made by

the sixth respondent / 292nd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt,

declaring the eighth respondent, a stranger to the mutt, as his

successor / 293rd Madathipathi of Madurai Adheenam Mutt, without

http://www.judis.nic.in
 5

following the due process of customs and practices and execution of a

Deed of Trust with the eighth respondent to administer, manage,

control and supervise the Madurai Adheenam. Aggrieved over the

same, religious institutions as well as Madathipathis of several

Adheenam Mutts have filed various petitions, including W.P.Nos.12915

and 26567 of 2012 & W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, wherein, the Division

Bench of this Court, after a detailed and elaborate discussion, by order

dated 31.10.2012, observed that the 8th respondent is no more the

pontiff of the 5th respondent and on account of removal of the eighth

respondent from the position of 293rd Pontiff of Madurai Adheenam on

20.10.2012, pending disposal of these petitions, this Court itself

directed the parties to adhere the civil proceedings pending and

subsequently, the sixth respondent has also lodged a complaint as

against the eighth respondent. Challenging the said removal, the

eighth respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.85 of 2013 and the same

is pending.

3.2 Prior to the disposal of W.P.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 &

W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, the Commissioner, HR & CE Department,

has filed a suit in O.S.No.1000 of 2012, challenging the appointment of

the eighth respondent as 293rd Madathipathi and the 'Deed of Trust'

http://www.judis.nic.in
 6

dated 23.04.2012 as well as to remove the sixth respondent from the

Mutt. In the said suit, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.966 of

2012 has been filed, wherein, by order dated 26.04.2013, the lower

Court has stayed the operation of the Deed of Trust dated 23.04.2012

as well as the appointment of eighth respondent.

3.3 Aggrieved by the order of interim stay, the eighth

respondent has preferred a civil revision petition in C.R.P(MD)No.1288

of 2013 and this Court, by order dated 19.08.2014, has dismissed the

petition, holding that as per Section 6(13) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious Charitable and Endowments Act and also as per the scheme

framed by this Court, while a Madathipathi is alive, another

Madathipathi cannot be appointed.

3.4 While things stood thus, the eighth respondent, with an

ulterior motive to create problems, once again, attempted to enter into

the premises of Madurai Aadheenam so as to cause hindrance to the

Mutt and usurp the properties of the Mutt. Moving one step ahead, the

eighth respondent, suppressing the earlier orders, has filed

Crl.O.P(MD)No.13323 of 2017, seeking police protection, so as to

enter the Mutt premises, in his capacity as 293 rd Madathipathi which is

per se illegal.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 7

3.5 Among other things, the main point urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that the management of the traditional

Mutt shall never be handed over to the eighth respondent, who has a

criminal background and is a habitual offender. In order to prove that

the eighth respondent is a habitual offender, having involved in sexual

abuse, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this

Court to the controversial video clippings released in the year 2010,

portraying his intimacy with an actress. Though the eighth respondent

claims that such video was a morphing one using the advancement of

technology, the said plea was negatived by the report submitted by

Forensic Science Lab, Delhi. The learned counsel for the petitioner also

narrated the details of the complaints lodged against the eighth

respondent, by his own disciples, including one Aarthi Rao. Reliance

was also made on the imposition of sentence and imprisonment for 20

years by the Courts of law on Gurmeet Ram Singh, a self proclaimed

Godman, for his alleged involvement of sexual abuse like that of the

eighth respondent.

3.6 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that based on the illegal trust deed dated 12.04.2012, the petitioner

has given a complaint against the eighth respondent. According to the

http://www.judis.nic.in
 8

learned counsel, the conduct of the eighth respondent is unknown to

principles of Saivism. The learned counsel further submitted that the

eighth respondent is attempting to take over the Madurai Adheenam,

claiming to be the 293rd Pontiff and attempted to meddle with the

activities of the mutt. The learned counsel, during the course of oral

arguments and also in the written arguments, submitted that for one

to even become a Thambiran, he must be a saivite and get various

Deeksha’s from the Gurumahasannidanam of the particular mutt and

only then he can become a Thambiran and therefore, the appointment

of the eighth respondent as Junior Pontiff/293rd Pontiff is illegal.

Further, it was contended that one can easily be identified by his

name as to which religion/sub clause of the religion he belongs to The

Saiva Sanyasys will bear the names of Nayanmars, Acharyars,

SamayAchariyars and the name of Lord Siva, Muruga, Ganesa etc.,

The name suffixed with ‘ANANDA’ denotes the person belongs to

‘Vedanta’ philosophy and not the Saiva Sithandha philosophy. The

name NithyANANDA simply identifies the 8th Respondent as the

vedanthi and not the saiva Sithandhi and no way connected to the

Madurai Adheenam and its Philosophy.

3.7 It was also contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the eighth respondent is basically functioning from

http://www.judis.nic.in
 9

Karnataka and not from Madurai. Therefore, he could never have

performed the duties of Tamibran. Also, the illegal affidavit of

appointment of the sixth respondent, which is now disputed by him

and the statement of the eighth respondent before various forums

including this Court in Crl.O.P (M.D) 13323/2017 at paragraphs 1, 4,

6, 10, 12 and 13, where he claimed to be the 293rd pontiff clearly

proves that all along the eighth respondent has taken a claim only as

the 293rd pontiff and not a junior pontiff and it is only for the purpose

of this case, a different stand is taken.

3.8 It was further contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that a Madathipathi of one mutt cannot head another mutt

and the 8th Respondent is admittedly a religious head of Nithyanandha

Dhyanapeetam having its entire function at Bidadi, Karnataka and he

still continues to be the Guru and religious Head of his own styled Mutt

which is having different philosophy, tenets, culture and practice under

the name and style of Nithyanandha Dhyanapeetam. Even after his

appointment, he is celebrating and continuing his religious

performance in his own style Mutt and celebrated Guru Poornima at his

Ashram and giving initiation (Dheekcha) to his Sishyas in his own

styled Mutt. In his counter affidavit, the 8 th respondent stated that he

http://www.judis.nic.in
 10

has personally initiated more than 1 lakh persons across Tamil Nadu

into Shiva Deeksha (Samaya Deeksha). Even assuming he is a junior

pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam, it is illegal for him to initiate Deeksha

to anybody, when 292nd Ponditff is alive. This statement of the 8th

respondent itself is sufficient to prove that he being polluting the

sanctity of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt and its philosophy. The tenets

and philosophy of his own styled Ashram called Nithyanandha

Dhyanapeetam is entirely different from the philosophy of Madurai

Adheenam.

3.9 It was also contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that if the eighth respondent had renounced the world and

become an ascetic under the 6th respondent, then he ought to have

continuously stayed in the Madurai mutt and having renounced his

stature as a guru, he ought to have surrendered all the properties

belonging to his self styled Ashram and must have transferred the

same to the Madurai Adheenam Mutt, but on the contrary, by creation

of an illegal trust, the properties of Madurai Adheenam were planned

to be vested with the eighth respondent.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 11

3.10 The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the

attention of this Court to an order in I.A.No.348/2015 in

O.S.No.90/2015, where the eighth respondent had staked a claim as

the head of different mutts, thereby pointing out that he is an habitual

mutt grabber. It was also contented that the role of the sixth

respondent is not only limited to the observance and development of

Saivite Philosophies, but also the properties worth thousands of Crores

of Rupees are to be administered in accordance with the provisions of

the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act

(hereinafter shortly referred to as 'HR & CE Act') and therefore, when

no action is taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner as an ardent

devotee for Thirugnanasambandar and a persuasion towards Saivism

and particularly Madurai Adheenam Mutt, had filed the writ petition,

which is maintainable as the same falls within the realm of Section 6

(17) and 6 (18) of the Act and even according to the orders of the

Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P (MD) Nos.12915 and 26567

of 2012 and W.P (MD) No.8260 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the

decision of this Court in V.Thiagarajan, President, Hindu Baktha

Jana Sabai v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (1) CWC 22].

http://www.judis.nic.in
 12

3.11 Aggrieved by the illegal attempts of the 8th respondent,

the petitioner is before this Court and it is his specific contention that

when the order of appointment of the eighth respondent as 293 rd

Madathipathi is stayed by the lower Court, which was upheld by this

Court and moreover, the said appointment letter itself was revoked by

the sixth respondent by letter dated 20.10.2012, the act of the eighth

respondent in introducing himself as 293 rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam /

Successor to the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam is highly illegal.

4. Per contra, the specific contentions raised by the learned

Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel appearing for the

eighth respondent, are as follows:

4.1 Denying all the allegations leveled by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, it is specifically contended by the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent that the eight respondent

was appointed as 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, on 27.04.2012, by

his predecessor, 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, sixth respondent

herein, after performing all the religious ceremonies viz., Visheda

Deeksha, Mantra Kaashayam, Nirvana Deeksha and Acharya

Abhishekam, since the sixth respondent has acknowledged him as his

http://www.judis.nic.in
 13

disciple and follower. Some third parties having no vested interests,

have filed several petitions with a sole intention to prevent him from

performing his regular functions.

4.2 Adding fuel to fire, the above said parties, who are anti-

social as well as anti-spiritual hooligan elements, had, somehow,

managed to have the sixth respondent to give a news paper

advertisement in Tamil Daily such as Dhina Malar and Dhinakaran in

the form of public notice dated 20.10.2012, informing the cancellation

of the appointment of the eighth respondent on 23.04.2012 and also

the affidavit dated 27.04.2012, subsequent to the filing of O.S.No.

1000 of 2012.

4.3 After satisfying himself about the efficacy as well as

spirituality of the eighth respondent, the sixth respondent, has

appointed him as his successor / 293rd Guru Maha Sannidhanam,

strictly in accordance with the provisions of the HR & CE Act and also

as per the traditions and usage prevalent in the Aadheenam, who has

to look into the affairs of the Mutt.

4.4 It is the peculiar submission of the learned Senior Counsel

for the eighth respondent that the appointment of the eight

http://www.judis.nic.in
 14

respondent as the successor, duly following all the customs and rituals

of the Madurai Aadheenam including Acharya Abhisbekham, is

irrevocable as per the Mutt Traditions and the sixth respondent / 292 nd

Guru Maha Sannidhanam / present pontiff, in his lifetime, can appoint

only one person as his successor. Revoking his appointment as 293 rd

pontiff, on one hand, the sixth respondent, on the other, in a hurried

manner, has appointed the seventh respondent as the Junior Pontiff /

Chinna Pandara Sannidhi / Illaya Sannidhanam and thereby,

attempting to appoint him as his successor. When the power of

revocation / cancellation is not vested with the sixth respondent, as

per the by-laws of the Mutt, the appointment of the eighth respondent

as 293rd Pontiff is valid and such being so, the 293rd pontiff can only

make appointments such as Junior Pontiff, etc., therefore, the

appointment of the seventh respondent as Junior Pontiff, by the sixth

respondent, is invalid.

4.5 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the eighth

respondent further submitted that the cases referred to by the

petitioner have no relevancy with the present one, as the eighth

respondent has been facing those criminal cases before the

appropriate Courts without adopting any dilatory tactics. Therefore, the

http://www.judis.nic.in
 15

act of the petitioner in referring to those cases before this Court is not

justifiable. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the

writ petition on the grounds of locus standi and res judicata.

4.6 It was also contended on behalf of the 8 th respondent

that initially, he is the 293 rd Pontiff, though a different picture was

attempted to be projected by pointing out to the counter that he was

appointed only as Junior Pontiff through rituals by performance of

Acharya Abishekam and not on the strength of the Affidavit or Trust

deed. Further, once a person is appointed as a Pontiff, he cannot be

removed and the appointment of the eighth respondent cannot be

nullified even if the sixth respondent is disqualified. A judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi v.

State of Tamil Nau and another [AIR 1983 Mad 72] was also

relied upon in support of the contention that the appointment of junior

pontiff is a right of the religious institution and the same cannot be

interfered without proper cause.

4.7 Denying that the eighth respondent is not acquainted

with the saivite sidhantha, the learned Senior Counsel for the eight

respondent, placing reliance upon the photographs and the counter

affidavit of the eighth respondent, contended that the eighth

http://www.judis.nic.in
 16

respondent has undergone training under various gurus from a tender

age and has rendered many discourses.

4.8 It was also pointed by the learned Senior Counsel,

relying upon the various medical records that the 8th respondent is

incapable of performing any sexual act and that the cases filed against

him in United States of America have been rejected with huge costs.

The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as the 292nd pontiff

was ill, the eighth respondent in the capacity of the junior Pondiff,

attempted to enter into the mutt only to perform the poojas and day

to-day activities. It was vociferously contended that the petitioner is

not an aggrieved person and by placing reliance upon the orders of the

same Division Bench, contended that only a public interest litigation

can be initiated. It was also contended that only the financial

irregularities are the subject matter of O.S.No.1000 of 2012 and no

specific allegation is there against the eighth respondent and there is

no exigency for the petitioner to approach this Court, as several suits

are pending with regard to the status of the 6 th respondent and 8th

respondent. An objection was also raised regarding the representations

of the petitioner alleging that there is no proof of sending or

acknowledgement and in the absence of the same, the writ petition

http://www.judis.nic.in
 17

cannot be entertained.

5. On the contrary, the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the sixth respondent are as follows:

5.1 The sixth respondent / 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam,

who heads the Mutt, its movable and immovable properties situated in

India and abroad, including the temples owned by Madurai Aadheenam

(Thirugnanasambanda Swamigal Aadheenam), as well as hereditary

trustee of several South Indian Temples, has the right to appoint his

successor as well as to withdraw such appointments. The eighth

respondent / head of Nithiyananda Dhiyana Peedam, has approached

the fifth respondent Mutt, in order to learn more about Saint

Thirugnanasambandar / founder of the Mutt, but he speaks more

about vedantha rather than Saiva Siddhantha philosophy. Having

observed the activities as well as attitudes of the eighth respondent,

the sixth respondent has placed him under observation in the Mutt, so

as to enable the eighth respondent to learn the customary practice as

well as Saiva Siddhantha Philosophy.

5.2 The stand taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the

sixth respondent is that having observed the eighth respondent and

with the fond hope that he would act in consonance with the traits

http://www.judis.nic.in
 18

required for a saivite guru and for the development of saivism, he has

placed the eighth respondent for the position as his follower /

successor. After knowing the criminal backgrounds of the eighth

respondent and due to acute public agitation as well as the advice of

the Mutt's well-wishers / Kindred Aadheenam, the appointment of the

eighth respondent was revoked, by him and a criminal complaint was

also lodged against the eighth respondent.

5.3 Since the appointment itself came to be revoked, there is

no question of the eighth respondent entering into the Mutt claiming

himself as 293rd Maha Sannidhanam and therefore, this petition is not

warranted.

5.4 After the filing of O.S.No.1000 of 2012 and after the

revocation of the appointment letter as well as Deed of Trust, the 8th

respondent despite the order of injunction against him, has been

deploying several methods to capture the mutt. In order to overcome

his flaws, which is the root cause for dragging the prestigious mutt to

the courts, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that

the eighth respondent, at the time when he was in the Mutt, has

obtained signatures from the sixth respondent, in several affidavits,

without his knowledge and used the same before this Court. In this

http://www.judis.nic.in
 19

regard, a copy of the written statement submitted by the sixth

respondent before the lower Court in O.S.No.83 of 2012, is produced

before this Court, wherein, it is averred as follows:

“9. The 1st defendant submits that in fact the 2nd

defendant/Nithyananda came to the Mutt in order to get
blessings and also to know more about Saint
Thirugnanasambandar, the founder of this Ancient Mutt.
While so, the said Nithyananda's speeches only Yoga
rather than Saiva Siddhantha, the philosophy of Madurai

Aadheenam Mutt. The 2nd defendant Nithyananda

wanted to be a disciple of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt,
simultaneously keeping his post as head of Pidathi
Ashram. Though it was advised him that one cannot be a
follower of the 2 different Ashram which belong to

different Philosophy, tenants and cult. However the 2nd

defendant Nithyananda promised that gradually he will
elevate and switch over to Saiva Siddantha Philosophy
and slowly withdraw himself from Dhiyana Peedam.

Taking his promise to be true the 1st defendant kept the

2nd defendant under observation in the Madurai

Aadheenam Mutt. The 2nd defendant was only kept

under observation and not in any other manner.

However during such observation the 2nd defendant

could not change himself from his attitude, principles
and his method of routine life. He could not follow, adopt
and accept the philosophy of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt.
During his stay for just few days in Madurai Aadheenam

http://www.judis.nic.in
 20

Mutt he made an attempt to spoil and pollute the well

cherished long tradition of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt and
its philosophy. He attempted to act against the
philosophy of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt...

...Further the 2nd defendant dislikes in doing Poojas

by calling himself as GOD. He started proclaiming and

calling himself as 293rd pontiff. The 1st defendant came

to know the bad antecedents of the 2nd defendant such

as involvement of 2nd defendant in several criminal

cases of sexual abuse.

10. On seeing all his immoral, illegal and unlawful

and unsuitable customary practice of the 2 nd defendant,

the 1st defendant simply withdraw himself from keeping

him under observation in the Mutt and sending him out
on 19.10.2012...

11. ...

12. The 1st defendant submits that during the

shorter stay of the 2nd defendant in the Madurai

Aadheenam Mutt, the 2nd defendant has indulged in

criminal activities of taking signature from the 1st

defendant in the document prepared, fabricated and

created by the 2nd defendant to suit his convenience of

making himself to be a Madatheepathi in Madurai
Aadheenam Mutt in a short cut method. With this

mala fide intention, the 2nd defendant has created a

http://www.judis.nic.in
 21

Trust deed and obtained signature from the 1st

defendant and get it registered by canvassing and

convincing the 1st defendant as though it is for the

betterment of the Madurai Aadheenam Mutt. The 2nd

defendant gained faith from the 1st defendant, the 1st

defendant blindly believed the 2nd defendant. Taking

advantage of this position, the 2nd defendant has

obtained the 1st defendant's signature in the affidavit

drafted and fabricated by the 1st defendant....

... All those affidavits, documents and trust deeds,

are not executed and signed by the 1st defendant with

his free knowledge and consent. It was stealthy, illegally

and fraudulently obtained by the 2nd defendant.”

5.5 The learned counsel thus drew the attention of this Court to

the consistent stand taken regarding the trust and contended that not

only the 8th respondent was found to be unfit to head the mutt which

gives importance to saivite agamas and philosophies, but also came to

know about his criminal intentions and antecedents, which also

disqualify him from heading the mutt during his period of observation

and ousted him. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the

5th and 6th respondents that in view of the interim orders of the

learned Sub-Judge in O.S No.1000/2012 and the orders of this Court

http://www.judis.nic.in
 22

in CRP (MD).No.1288 of 2013, the eighth respondent cannot take

recourse under the Trust Deed as all further actions based on the

rights arising out of the trust deed, has been injuncted.

6. The second respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit,

narrating the events that took place and they had taken a stand that

the appointment of the eighth respondent is stayed by the lower Court

and the matter is pending adjudication before the lower Court. The

learned Special Government pleader, appearing for the 2nd respondent

submitted that though the cause of action for the writ petition is

different from the earlier litigations and the writ petition, if the

petitioner still finds any fault in the implementation of the order of this

Court, it is for him to file an appropriate Contempt Petition. Having

admitted the receipt of the representations of the petitioner, the

learned Special Government Pleader, in view of the orders of the Civil

Court, affirmed by this Court, submitted that the eighth respondent

cannot interfere with the affairs of the 5 th respondent mutt and that

the day to-day activities are adhered to without any issues by the 6 th

and 7th respondents.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 23

7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties

and perused all the voluminous documents placed on record and the

written arguments filed by the petitioner and the eighth respondent.

There is no representation for the seventh respondent, despite notice

served on him.

8. During the course of the arguments, it is represented by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is a formal

party and therefore, he is not pressing the writ petition as against the

first respondent. Recording such submission, this Court, by order

dated 23.11.2017, has dismissed the writ petition as against the first

respondent.

9. During the course of arguments, when it was pointed out to

the learned counsel for the eighth respondent as to how, the eight

respondent could stake a claim as the 293 rd pontiff in the affidavit filed

in support of the vacate the interim injunction petition, when the

292nd pontiff was alive more so after the orders of the Division Bench

and the learned Single Judge in CRP confirming the interim injunction

against him, had become final, it was agreed by the learned counsel to

http://www.judis.nic.in
 24

file an affidavit to the effect of withdrawing the claim as 293rd pontiff

and also filed an affidavit dated 02/02/2018 to such effect and the

same is placed on record.

9.1 Before proceeding with this case, when this Court

suggested the parties to go before the competent Civil Court to resolve

the dispute, all the parties, more particularly, the eight respondent,

wanted this matter to be heard and decided on merits. Hence, this

Court proceeded with the case on merits.

10. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it

appropriate to reiterate the facts about Madurai Aadheenam as well as

the procedure for appointing Madathipathi at Madurai Aadheenam,

which was already referred to by a Division Bench of this Court.

10.1 Madurai Aadheenam is a world renowned Monastery

spreading the cause of Saivism. As per the events chronicled in various

literatures, the Madurai Adheenam had its origin around the 6th

Century A.D. and has been in existence. It came into prominence

during the period of great Nayanmar Thirugnanasambandhar,

who spent his entire life time for the upliftment of Saivism

and Tamil, with utmost devotion exhibited by none of his

contemporaries or Tamil Scholars after him. His “Thevarams”

spell out the importance he gave for Tamil, which in itself if practised

http://www.judis.nic.in
 25

would help one to reach the heavenly bode of the God.

The saint is the first to preach that the worship of the Lord must be in

Tamil and he did so by singing the various “thevarams” at various

Shiva Temples. It was a time, when there was a threat to

Saivism and Tamil, as various cultures alien to this land was

determined to destroy not only the culture, but also the wealth of

this land. According to literary records, a great debate between the

scholars of Jainism and Saivism in the Madurai Adheenam. Saint

Thirugnanasambandhar succeeded in debate as against the Jain

Scholars and it is only from this point of time, Madurai Adheenam

began to gain greater prominence in social, religious as well as in the

field of Literature. This Adheenam has been a guiding light for

spreading of saivite philosophy for several centuries together. The

movable and immovable properties of Adheenam are worth several

thousands of crores. Apart from the movables in the form of jewels

and cash reserves, other objects of antique value, including the

temples that come under the control of the Adheenam.

10.2 After the enactment of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the control of Adheenam also came

under the supervision of the Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Department and Guru Maha Saneedhanam, heads the

Adheenam. The Guru Maha Saneedhanam is the Administrative as well

http://www.judis.nic.in
 26

as the Financial Controller of the entire Adheenam, which have

preserved for more than 1400 years.

10.3 The Adheenakarthar is the head of the Adheenam, also

known as Guru Maha Sannithanam / Pandara Sannathi and under him,

a body of Ascetics which includes (a) Pradesis, who are Sanyasis

waiting for ordainment into the holy order of that Adheenam;

(b) several ordained Tambirans entrusted with various district religious

and administrative duties by the Adheenakarthar; and (c) one Junior

Pontiff who is also known and called in the spiritual field as 'Elaya

Sannithanam' or 'Elavarasu' or 'Chinnapattam'. All the above are

collectively called as Tirukootam (Holy Crowd).

10.4 The procedure for nominating a Successor is well

established and it has been followed in all these years. The following

procedures are mandatory to become a Saiva Sanyasi in a Saiva

Adheena Mutt which are universally followed in all Saiva Adheenas

(Mutt) as customs and usage:

1. Should be Saivite;
2. Yathra Kaashayam (Pradesi)
3. Samaya Deekshai
4. Visheda Deekshai
5. Mandira Kashayam
6. Nirvana Deekshai
7. Dhikshai Kurai
8. Aarukatti (6-Katti)

http://www.judis.nic.in
 27

9. Acharya Abhishegam
10. Junior Pontiff

10.5 It has been the tradition and culture as well as the custom

of the Madurai Adheenam to appoint a person who is ingrained in

Saivite scriptures and customs. The incumbent undergoes rigorous

training and has to be well versed in Saivite Philosophy. There has

been a structured process in the selection of the Guru Maha

Saneedhanam of the Madurai Adheenam till this point of time.

Generally, as per custom and tradition of Madurai Adheenam, one of

the Thambirans or junior monk would be appointed as Ilaya

Sannidhanam to succeed Guru Maha Sannidhanam.

10.6 During his lifetime, Adheenakarthar identifies a Tambiran,

out of the available Tambirans in his Adheenam, whom he considers

duly qualified to succeed him after his demise and then he nominates

such Tambiran as the Ilaya Sannithanam or Junior Pontiff by

performing a mandatory ritual namely “Acharya Abhiseka” to be

conducted within the premises of the Adheenam in the presence of

disciples of Adheenam and the representatives of Kindred Adheenams.

10.7 Sanyasi of Saivite Adheenam is selected from Saiva

Velalar, Mudaliar and Karkatha Velalar. The reason for soliciting from

http://www.judis.nic.in
 28

the particular sect is that such person will be vegetarian from his

hereditary. A saivite alone is entitled to become Sanyasi of a Saivite

Adheenam. In case, the Adheenakarthar in his spiritual wisdom,

considers that no eligible Thambiran is available, then it becomes

obligatory by custom that he has to approach the Heads of either

Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam or Dharmapuram Adheenam to seek an

eligible and duly qualified Tambiran from their Adheenams to be

nominated as Junior Pontiff of his Adheenam.

10.8 The Adheenakarthar, in his spiritual wisdom, selects one

Tambiran from his Adheenam and leaves a Will nominating such

Tambiran to be his successor after his demise. After his demise, the

person so nominated by the deceased Adheenakarthar through the

Will, becomes the Adheenakarthar of the Adheenam after the

performance of the mandatory ritual of “Acharya Abhishekam” done in

the presence of the disciples of the Adheenam and representatives of

Kindred Adheenams. In case, the Adheenakarthar attains Mukti

(reaching the heavenly abode) suddenly and if he had not nominated

the Junior Pontiff during his lifetime or if he has not left a Will, then the

spiritual disciples attached to the Adheenam and in consultation with

the Adheenakarthars of Tiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and/or

Dharmapuram Adheenam arrive at a consensus, select a Tambiran

http://www.judis.nic.in
 29

whom they consider would be the proper successor to become the

Head of Adheenam out of the eligible and qualified Tambirans. The

mandatory ritual of “Acharya Abhishekan” would be done for such

selected Tambiran in the presence of the disciples of the Adheenam

and representatives of Kindred Adheenams.

11. It is a sorry state of affair that because of the irregular

appointment of the eighth respondent, a traditional Aadheenam Mutt is

made to knock at the doors of this Court seeking justice. The

submission put forth by the sixth respondent of renowned Mutt that

without his knowledge, the eighth respondent has obtained his

signatures in various deeds as well as affidavits is not only incorrigible

but also callous, as it is his moral responsibility to run the Mutt without

giving any room to debate and also without affecting the faith / trust of

its worshippers. This Court is not in consonance with the contention of

the eight respondent that the removal by the sixth respondent will not

disqualify his appointment. A person heading the prestigious institution

must be consistent in his approach, not above the customary practice

of the mutt and the law and should not take decisions according to his

own whims and fancies in violation of the procedures followed under

saivite mutts for appointing the successor, which is possible only by

elevating a Thambiran appointed as Junior Pontiff. Though the

http://www.judis.nic.in
 30

appointment of Ilaya sannidanam or Junior Pontiff from among the

Tambirans is common to saivite mutts, each mutt have their own

internal rituals that are to be scrupulously followed. Likewise,

renunciation of the worldly pleasures is a primordial trait for a selected

Tambiran, who eventually becomes the Pontiff by succession and the

main philosophy of the saiva sidhantha is the attainment of “mukthi”

i.e., to end the cycle of birth by attaining the lotus feet of Lord Shiva.

In the words of great saint Thiruvalluvar, renouncing the worldly

pleasures and curbing of the desires is essential to end the cycle of

birth, which he has described in the following couplets as follows:

Couplet 343 (Jwt[):

mly;ntz;Lk; Ie;jd; g[yj;ij tply;ntz;Lk;
ntz;oa vy;yhk; xU';F/

Let the five senses be destroyed; and at the same time, let everything
associated or derived from the five senses be abandoned that the
ascetic has formerly desired.

Couplet 344 (Jwt[):

,ay;g[MFk; nehd;gpw;Fxd;W ,d;ik cilik
kay;MFk; kw;Wk; bgah;j;J/

To be altogether destitute is the proper condition of those who perform

austerities; if they possess anything, it will change their resolution and
bring them back to their confused state. One must truly renounce

http://www.judis.nic.in
 31

every pleasure and attachment failing which, it will create multiple

attachments resulting in the fall of the person.

Couplet 346 (Jwt[):

ahh; vdJ vd;D"; brUf;FmWg;ghd; thndhh;f;F
cah;e;j cyfk; g[Fk;/
He who destroys the pride which says "I", "mine" will enter a world
which is difficult even to the Gods to attain. It is only when destroys
his attachment and identification to material things, he can continue in
his ascetic journey.

Couplet 361 (mth mWj;jy;):

mthvd;g vy;yh caph;f;Fk;v"; "hd;Wk;
jthmg; gpwg;g[<Dk; tpj;J/

Desire is the seed, which produces unceasing births, at all times, to all
creatures. If one has to end the cycle of birth, he must end his desire
towards worldly pleasures.

Couplet 364 (mth mWj;jy;):

J}ca;ik vd;gJ mthtpd;ik kw;wJ
thma;ik ntz;l tUk;/.

Purity of mind is a state where one is free from desire; and that
freedom from desire ensues one in the search of truth, which is
nothing but reaching god.

Couplet 366 (mth mWj;jy;):

m";Rt njhUk; mwnd xUtid
t";rpg;g njhUk; mth/

http://www.judis.nic.in
 32

It is the chief duty of an ascetic to watch against desire with fear; for it
has power to deceive and destroy him. The desire for any pleasure will
make one deviate from the path of ascetic life.

12. In this case, it is not in dispute, that various criminal cases

are pending and the eighth respondent in his quest for power has been

a prolific litigant against various mutts of various beliefs claiming the

status of madathipathi of all of them. Leading the life of a sanyasi is

also one of the primordial traits. The life of a sanyasi is embedded

with Brahmacharya, which if practised will lead to self-realisation. It

involves control of the senses and imposes mental discipline. The basic

traits required for a person who has denounced the worldly pleasures

is lacking in the eighth respondent as he is behind power and is tainted

with allegations regarding sexual practices and abuse in his ashram,

run under different philosophy completely alien to saivite philosophy.

The photographs produced by the eighth respondent clearly manifest

that he has not been leading a simple life, whereby the desires in life

are eradicated leading to a destitute life. The lavish life style is alien

to Saivism, where the ultimate aim to achieve “mukthi” is to renounce

all attachments and is explained by the concept of “Pathi, Pasu and

Pasam”.

13. Even as per the judgment relied upon by the 8th respondent

http://www.judis.nic.in
 33

in Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi case (cited supra), it is clear that

the junior pontiff must be from the same mutt, who must be

appointed as per the procedures and can be removed under certain

circumstances. A perusal of the scheme of the mutt filed by the 8th

respondent himself states that the junior pontiff is to be appointed

from the sishyas of Thirugnanasambandar Adheenam and after several

Dheekshas and Kashayams only, Acharya Abisekham is to be

conducted.

14. In this case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, the eighth respondent is not from this mutt. It appears

that the procedures stated above that have to be followed before a

person is recognized as a Thambiran and then appointed as Junior

Pontiff, has not been followed in the present case. Even as per the

case of the eighth respondent, only the Acharya Abishegam was

performed and there are no particulars as to the dates on which

various deekshas and kashyams were given. Even according to the

eighth respondent, all the deekshas and kashyams were not given by

the sixth respondent. The Sixth respondent has initially by-passed the

procedures, for unknown reasons and later realized his mistakes and

rectified the same. In any case, such actions, in the opinion of this

Court, may not stand the judicial scrutiny as the appointment of a

http://www.judis.nic.in
 34

successor pontiff, though a right, is always subject to adherence to

basic principles and procedures followed by the mutt from the time of

Thirugnanasambandar.

15. It is also evident that for a person to be appointed as a

madathipathi, he has to be a sishya of the another and must denounce

everything attached to him. In this case, the eighth respondent is a

self-styled Madapathi of Nithyananda Dyanapeetam, Karnataka.

Whileso, his claim of being a follower of the sixth respondent is

fallacious. Also, a madathipathi of one mutt normally cannot be

appointed as a pontiff of any other mutt, which follows a different

philosophy. In the present case, in addition to the above, the eighth

respondent has his own ashram at Bidadi. In such event, he could not

have resided continuously at Madurai, which is also not his case. It is

also admitted by the eighth respondent that numerous civil and

criminal cases are pending against him. It is not out of place to record

that the objections of the eight respondent that no proof has been

furnished for sending the representations, despite postal receipts, has

no valid force, since the learned counsel for the respondents has

admitted the receipt by them.

16. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.Nos.12915 & 26567 of 2012 and W.P(MD)No.8260 of 2012, which

http://www.judis.nic.in
 35

were filed questioning the appointment of the eighth respondent and

also levelling some allegations against him, after elaborate arguments,

by order dated 31.10.2012, has observed as follows:

“So far as the present case is concerned, since

already a suit has been filed, we are not inclined to issue
any direction in the present writ petitions. More so,

when 10th respondent is now said to have been removed

from the position of 293rd Mutt of Madurai Adheenam.

Suffice it to note that State can file appropriate
application in the suit pending before the Sub Court,
Madurai, to get any interim direction, if they so desire.
All the issues are left open.”

17. Thereafter, the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge,

Madurai, in I.A.No.966 of 2012 in O.S.No.1000 of 2012, after a

detailed and elaborate argument, had by order dated 26.02.2013,

stayed the operation of the Deed of Trust dated 23.04.2012 as well as

the affidavit appointing the eighth respondent as 293rd

Aadheenakarthar of Madurai Aadheenam Mutt till the disposal of the

suit.

18. Aggrieved over the same, the eighth respondent has moved

the Court dealing with civil revision petitions and challenged the said

http://www.judis.nic.in
 36

interim order by filing C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2013, wherein, this Court,

by order dated 19.08.2014, has given a categorical finding and upheld

the order of interim stay, thereby, dismissed the civil revision petition.

The relevant portion of the said order is extracted as under:

“7.The learned Judge considered the pleadings and

also the guidelines for appointing the Madathipathi,
concluded that the petitioner did not fulfil the

requirements to be appointed as 293rd Guru. The

learned Judge has held that the appointment of the

petitioner as 293rd Junior Guru, while 292nd Guru is still

alive, is invalid and the same is contrary to the practice
of Math. He also held that according to the deposition as
per the usage and customs of the Math, a person, who is
not a Thambiran or Thiruvadhuthurai Aadheenam of
Thanjavur or Aadheenam of Dharmavaram or a Devotee
of Madurai Aadheenam, can be appointed as

Madathipathi of Math. When 292nd Aadheenam is alive,

appointing Nithyanandha as 293rd Junior Aadheenam, is

against the usage and customs of Math. The learned
Judge held that balance of convenience is in favour of
the first respondent and functioning of two Trustees will
lead to administrative problem. Based on these reasons,
the learned Judge granted stay of the Trust deed and
declaration deed, dated 27.04.2012, till the disposal of
the suit...

...

http://www.judis.nic.in
 37

12.From the records, it is seen that as per Section

6(13) of the Act and the scheme framed by this Court
while a Madathipathi is alive another Madathipathi
cannot be appointed. Further, qualifications and
eligibility criteria for a person as Madathipathi, is clearly
mentioned and followed for a long time. The petitioner
does not fulfil any of the conditions for being appointed
as Madathipathi.”

19. In the meanwhile, pending disposal of these petitions, the

appointment of the eighth respondent itself was revoked by the sixth

respondent by letter dated 20.10.2012, which was also challenged by

the eighth respondent in O.S.No.85 of 2013 and the same is pending.

20. After the order of dismissal made in C.R.P(MD).No.

1288/2013, dated 19.08.2014, the eighth respondent has filed

Crl.O.P(MD)No.13323 of 2017 after a lapse of about three years,

seeking police protection to enter into the premises of Madurai

Aadheenam Mutt, wherein, this Court has not granted any order.

21. This Court, while hearing the matter, at the initial stage of

arguments, has passed an interim order, observing as follows:

“..This Court, prima facie, is of the view that despite

the orders of the Honourable Division Bench of this

http://www.judis.nic.in
 38

Court as well as the order of the learned Single Judge of

this Court, the eighth respondent is illegally attempting
to interfere with the administration of the fifth
respondent – Mutt.

9. Hence, there shall be an order of interim

injunction restraining the eighth respondent or any one
claiming under him, from in any way interfering or
entering into the premises of the fifth respondent – Mutt
until further orders of this Court.”

22. Despite the earlier orders of this Court in the Civil Revision

Petition, the eighth respondent has attempted to take over the mutt

and in the process also sought police protection in the capacity as

293rd Guru Maha Sannidanam. It is under such circumstances, this

Court has been approached. Therefore, the cause of action for the

present writ petition is different and therefore, is not barred by

res judicata.

23. Insofar as the maintainability is concerned, as rightly pointed

out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question herein is not

only related to religious functions, but also administrative functions.

The Hon’ble Division Bench has in earlier round of litigation, held the

writ petition at the instance of the petitioner to be maintainable. In the

http://www.judis.nic.in
 39

decision in V.Thiagarajan case (cited supra), this Court has held as

follows:

“6. ...(a)It is stated that the petitioner is not a

regular visitor of the temple and if he has got any
grievance regarding the infraction of the procedure set
out under Section 34 of the Act, he can only file a Public
Interest Litigation. It is also stated that the writ petition
before this Court is not maintainable.”

“13.According to the learned Additional Advocate

General, the petitioner is neither aggrieved by the issue
nor he is a person interested. Whether he is aggrieved
or not depends on the merits of the matter and it will be
dealt with separately. It is relevant to find out, as to
whether he is a person interested. Section 6(15) of the
Act defines the term person having interest. Under the
said provision, the person having interest in respect of a
math, temple and endowment has been separately
defined. In respect of the term person having interest
regarding Temple the same has been dealt with under
Section 6(15)(b), which is as follows:
“ 6(15)(b). in the case of a temple, a person who is
entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending
the performance of worship or service in the temple,
or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of
partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts
thereat”
Therefore, an analysis shows that even a person who is
entitled to attend or partake in the temple services is a
person having interest, whether he actually exercises his

http://www.judis.nic.in
 40

entitlement or not. Being a Hindu, as stated in the affidavit,

a believer of Hindu Temples, the petitioner is certainly a
person entitled to worship in the temple, and therefore, the
contention raised in the counter affidavit by the
respondents as if the petitioner is not in the habit of
visiting the present temple, viz., Arulmigu
Madanagoapalaswamy Thirukoil, has little significance while
considering the definition of “person having interest".

In the present case, it is the specific plea of the petitioner that he is an

ardent saivite and devout disciple of the fifth respondent mutt and he

has been continuously agitating the appointment of the eighth

respondent. He is definitely a person having interest as contemplated

under Section 6(15) of the Act and hence, the writ petition is held

to be maintainable.

24. As the eighth respondent has admitted and filed an affidavit

that he is not the 293 rd pontiff, he is not entitled to claim any right as

such. Further, as his appointment has been revoked and pending

adjudication before the Civil Court, he has no right to enter into the

mutt or any temple under the mutt either as a Junior Pontiff or 293rd

Pontiff.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 41

25. Thus, for the reasons stated above, this Court has no

hesitation to allow this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is

allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

26. Before parting with this, this Court is of the view that the

administration of Various mutts is subject to the control of the 2nd

respondent under the HR & CE Act, without interference with the

religious functions and activities of the mutt. Though the right of the

pontiff in appointing his successor cannot be ordinarily challenged, as it

is a fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of

India, the same cannot be said with regard to the appointee, as such

appointment can be revoked, under certain circumstances, like failure

to follow the procedure under the scheme or practices followed by the

mutt and for any of the reasons stated in Section 59 of the HR & CE

Act. It also means that if a person, who is likely to bring disrepute to

the mutt because of any of his traits or practices not in line with the

procedures and philosophies of the mutt, is appointed, he can be

removed or his appointment can be revoked by the Pontiff himself. It

is the duty of the 2nd respondent to ensure that the properties of all

the religious endowments are under protection. The definition of

“religious endowment” under Section 6(17) and “religious institution”

under Section 6(18) also include the Maths. The country is mounting

http://www.judis.nic.in
 42

will self proclaimed godmen like the eighth respondent, who claim

to be spiritual gurus initially and later proclaim themselves to be god

and in the process end up amassing wealth and abusing innocent and

vulnerable children and women. Therefore, under the said

circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions;

(a) The eight respondent shall not enter into the mutt or any

temple under the mutt either as a Junior Pontiff or 293 rd Pontiff and

any such attempt would be violative of the order of the Division Bench

in WP.Nos.12915 and 26567 of 2012 and WP (MD)No.8260 of 2012

dated 31.10.2012 as well as the order of this Court in CRP(MD).No.

1288 of 2013 dated 19.08.2014, which attained finality.

(b) The 2nd respondent shall ensure that the eight respondent is

not permitted to enter into the fifth respondent mutt for whatsoever

reasons, pending disposal of the civil suits and for that purpose, direct

that appropriate action be taken and if necessary, seek police action;

(c) In case of any difficulty in performing the daily Pooja or

administration of the mutt, due to the ill-health of the sixth

respondent, in the absence of the seventh respondent, the 2nd

respondent shall instruct the appropriate Assistant Commissioner to

take such action as necessary under Section 60 of the Act, to protect

the interest of the mutt;

http://www.judis.nic.in
 43

(d) The second respondent shall collect the schemes and

procedures of various mutts in the State in the appointment of

successors and the properties vested with them, within a period of

eight weeks and submit the same before this Court;

(e) The second respondent shall take steps to nullify any similar

trust deeds executed by any madathipathis as in this case whereby,

under the guise of trust, the administration of the entire properties of

the trust are vested with third parties by subverting the provisions of

HR & CE Act;

(f) In cases, where any spiritual head acts in such a way to bring

disrepute to the math or ashram, which he is heading, appropriate

action shall be initiated under Section 53 or 59 of the HR & CE Act as

the case may be.

Post after eight weeks for reporting compliance.

05.03.2018
Index :Yes
Internet :Yes
gk/rk

http://www.judis.nic.in
 44

To:
1.The Chief Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department,

119, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner,

HR & CE Department, Madurai – 1.

4.The District Collector,

Madurai District, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 45

R.MAHADEVEN, J.

gk/rk

Pre-delivery order made in

W.P.(MD).No.19004 of 2017

05.03.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in