Advantages Outweigh Procedural Infractions: Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Leasing Of Temple Land For Building College

The division bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan noted that even though the requirements of Rule 2 (1) of the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules 1960 have not been entirely complied with, the advantages of the purpose for which leasing was done would outweigh the procedural infractions.

“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. We are therefore of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere with the proposed transaction,” the court observed.

The court also noted that while Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 and the rules provided the procedure to be followed during the alienation of immovable trust property, the act and the rule were silent on the consequences of non-compliance with the procedural requirements. Thus, the bench observed that in the absence of consequence of non-compliance, the word 'shall' used in the provisions could be said to be directory and not mandatory.

“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. We have extracted both Section 34 of the Act, 1959, and the Rules supra neither of them prescribed the consequence of any infraction of the proviso to Section 34 of the Act, 1959, or the provisions of Rule 2 of the Rules,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by temple activist TR Ramesh challenging the decision of a single judge refusing to interfere with the lease of the temple property. The writ court had noted that since the object of the lease was a benevolent one, the procedural irregularities or deviations would not vitiate the purpose.

Ramesh argued that when the notice of lease was published calling for objections from the Public, the details as required under Clause (c) and Clause (f) of Rule 2 were not set out, preventing him from making a well-informed objection to the proposed lease. He argued that the law used the word “Shall” and thus the requirement was mandatory. He thus submitted that failure to comply with the procedural requirement would nullify it.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that since the purpose of the lease was for the common good using the surplus funds of the temple, the procedural violation would not vitiate the entire process. It was also submitted that the object of the publication was only to inform the public about the proposal and to invite objections. It was argued that the word “shall” used in the Procedural Rules has to be read as “May” as per a long line of judicial pronouncements, including those of the Privy Council, and thus, the lease could not be interfered with.

The court agreed with the submission and noted that the word “Shall” used in a statute or rule can be held to be a directory depending on the object that was sought to be achieved. The court noted that the object sought to be achieved by the TN HR & CE Act was to curb unauthorized alienation or long-term lease of the temple property by the trustees and when the Commissioner of HR & CE himself had sanctioned the lease, after applying his mind, any procedural infraction would not nullify the lease.

The court was thus not inclined to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. T. R. Ramesh Party-in-person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Shanmuga Sundaram, Senior Counsel Asst. by Mr. N. R. R. Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 76

Case No: W. A. No. 105 of 2025