W.A.No.105 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

29.01.2025

Delivered on

24.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

W.A.No. 105 of 2025

and CMP. Nos. 582 and 586 of 2025

T.R.Ramesh .. Appellant

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable

Endowments Department,

119 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 039.

2. The Executive Officer,

Sri Somanathaswamy Temple, Kolathur,

Sannathi St, Sarojini Nagar,

Kolathur, Chennai 600 099. ...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set

aside the order dated 03.10.2024 made in Writ Petition No. 29684 of 2024.

1/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Ramesh

Party-in-person

For Respondents : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, Senior Counsel

Asst. by Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

Special Government Pleader

****

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition in WP

No.29684 of 2024, challenge in which was to the notice published in

‘Makkal Kural’ a Tamil Daily on 08.09.2024. The said notice was

published by the first respondent calling for objections from the Public to

the proposed lease of land of an extent of 2.40 acres belonging to the second

respondent to Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple for housing the Arts and

Science college run by the said Temple. The Lease was proposed to be for a

period of 25 years.

2/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

2. The said publication was made in compliance with the

requirements of the proviso to Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Act, 1959”). It was the primary contention of the petitioner before the

Writ Court is that the publication is not in conformity with the requirements

of the provisions of the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules,1960,

framed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

3. The short facts that are required for the disposal of the Appeal are

as follows:

3.1. An extent of 2.40 acres of land in Kolathur Village belongs to the

second respondent viz. Sri Somanathaswamy Temple at Kolathur. Arulmigu

Kapaleeswarar Temple, a major temple in Chennai had started a Arulmigu

Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College in Kolathur from the Academic

Year 2021-2022. At present there are 743 students pursuing both Under

Graduate and Post Graduate Courses in the said Institution. The said

3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

Institution is now being run in a Private rented building.

3.2. In order to facilitate construction of own Buildings for the said

College, the Government had allotted an extent of 1.44.20 hectares of land.

As the said land was insufficient, it was decided to take on lease the land

measuring about of 2.45 Acres in TS No.12, Old Survey No.89/4, Block 25

of Kulathur village belonging to the second respondent Temple. Originally

the first respondent approved the lease for a period of 5 years vide

proceedings dated 27.11.2023. The fair rent payable was fixed at

Rs.3,19,000/- per month by the Fair Rent Fixation Committee by order

dated 03.10.2022.

3.3. The Education Department, however, required a lease for a

period of not less than 25 years to enable it to grant permanent recognition

to the College. Therefore, a request was made by the Management of the

College for lease for a period of 25 years which resulted in initiation of

action under Section 34 of the Act of 1959. Section 34 of the Act, 1959

provides that any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term

4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

exceeding 5 years of any immovable property belonging to a Hindu

Religious Institution shall not be valid unless it is sanctioned by the

Commissioner. Proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 1959 requires a

publication to be made by the Commissioner inviting objections and

suggestions with respect to the proposal for sale or lease of immovable

property for a period more than 5 years.

3.4. The Government has framed Rules under the Rule making power

providing for the modalities for making such publication. These Rules are

called the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules, 1960. The Rules

laid down the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in granting

sanction under Section 34 of the Act of 1959. It is the claim of the appellant

that these Rules have not been strictly followed and the publication made

does not confirm to the requirements of Rule 2 of the Rules.

4. According to the appellant, the violations have prevented the

public from making out well informed objections or suggestions for the

proposal to lease out the lands belonging to the Temple. The appellant

5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

would also contend that the guideline value of the property has not been

properly adverted to while fixing the rent.

5. The Writ Petition was resisted by the respondents contending that

the purpose for which the land is to be leased is also a public purpose and

meant for welfare of the public. The requirement of the Rules have been

substantially complied with and therefore, the Writ Court will not interfere

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Court, however,

dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the object being a benevolent

one, the procedural irregularities or deviations will not vitiate the purpose.

Aggrieved the appellant is before us.

6. We have heard Mr.T.R.Ramesh, the appellant appearing in person

and Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel instructed by

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2.

6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

7. Mr.T.R.Ramesh, the appellant appearing in person would reiterate

the submissions made by him before the Writ Court and contend that the

Writ Court was not justified in concluding that the procedural violations

pointed out by him will not vitiate the transaction.

8. Contending contra Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that when the

actual cause viz. construction of a Arts and Science College is for common

good and it is the surplus funds of the temple that are being used for

educational purposes, the violations if any cannot be construed to have the

effect of vitiating the entire process. He would also point out that after

enactment of Section 34(A) of the Act of 1959 with effect from 10.05.2003

any transaction relating to lease of temple property is done after getting the

Fair Rent Fixation Committee to fix fair rent for the temple property.

Therefore, the claim that the requirements of Rule 2 of the Alienation of

Immovable Trust Property Rules, have not been complied with may not

invariably result in the transaction being prejudicial to the temple

7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

concerned.

9. The entire proceedings have also been placed before us. It is seen

there from that on 27.09.2022, the Fair Rent Fixation Committee constituted

under Section 34(A) of the Act had fixed the fair rent for the land measuring

about 1,04,544 sq. feet at Rs.3,19,000/-. Thereafter, on 27.11.2023, the

Commissioner, HR & CE has permitted lease of the land for a period of five

years. However, since the lease for 5 years was found insufficient for the

purposes of grant of recognition, the Trustees of the Arulmigu

Kapaleeswarar Temple passed a resolution on 08.07.2024 offering to take

the land on a long lease for a period of 25 years. This proposal was

accepted by the Trustees of the second respondent Temple by a resolution

dated 31.07.2024. Thereafter, the Commissioner, HR & CE Department viz.

the first respondent had issued the impugned advertisement calling for

objections. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel

Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, the requirements of law have been substantially

complied with and therefore, the contention of the appellant has been rightly

rejected by the Writ Court.

8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

10. Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Act, 1959 which deals with Alienation of Immovable Trust

Property Rules, reads as follows:

“34. Alienation of Immovable Trust Property.—(1)

Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a

term exceeding five years of any immovable property,

belonging to, or given or endowed for the purposes, of

any religious institution shall be null and void unless it

is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary

or beneficial to the institution:

Provided that before such sanction is accorded,

the particulars relating to the proposed transaction

shall be published in such manner as may be

prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with

respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions

received from the trustee or other persons having

interest shall be duly consider by the Commissioner:

Provided further that the Commissioner shall

not accord such sanction without the previous

approval of the Government.

Explanation.—Any lease of the property above

9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

mentioned through for a term not exceeding five years

shall, if it contains a provision for renewal for a

further term (so as to exceed five years in the

aggregate), whether subject to any condition or not, be

deemed to be a lease for a period exceeding five years.

(2) When according such sanction, the

Commissioner may impose such conditions and give

such direction, as he may deem necessary regarding

the utilization of the amount raised by the transaction,

the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage

regarding the discharge of the same within a

reasonable period.

(3) A copy of the order made by the

Commissioner under this section shall be

communicated to the Government and to the trustee

and shall be published in such manner as may be

prescribed.

(4) The trustee may, within three months from

the date of his receipt of a copy of the order, and any

person having interest may within three months from

the date of the publication of the order appeal to the

Court to modify the order or set it aside.

(4-A) The Government may issue such directions

to the Commissioner as in their opinion are necessary,

10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

in respect of any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of

any immovable property, belonging to, or given or

endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution

and the Commissioner shall give effect to all such

directions.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply

to the imams referred to in section 41.

The procedure that is to be followed in granting a sanction under Section 34

is detailed in the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules, 1960. The

said rules read as follows:

“1. These rules may be called the Alienation of

Immovable Trust Property Rules.

2. (1) Notice of the proposals for any exchange,

sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding

five years of any immovable property belonging to or

given or endowed for the purpose of any religious

institution shall contain particulars, in respect of the

following, namely:-

(a)nature of the proposed transaction;

(b)correct description of the properties relating to the

11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

proposed transaction with information regarding the

survey number, extent and boundaries and ward

number and door number also in the case of

properties within the limits of municipalities and the

City of Chennai

(c)the revenue assessed on the properties relating to

the proposed transaction by way of land revenue, cess,

quit-rent, ground-rent, property tax, etc.;

(d)any encumbrance to which the properties relating

to the proposed transaction are subject;

(e)if the proposal is for mortgage, the amount for

which the properties are proposed to be mortgaged;

(f)if the proposal is for sale or lease, the probable

price or the rental, as the case may be, that is

expected;

(g) the purpose for which the amount so raised is to be

utilised.

The notice shall specify a reasonable time, being not

less than 30 days from the date of the issue of the

notice, within which objections or suggestions may be

sent. It shall also specify the date on which an

enquiry, if any, is proposed to be held to consider the

objections or suggestions. A copy of the notice shall

be served in person or sent by registered post, with

acknowledgement due to the trustee or trustees of the

12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

religious institutions concerned, and where the

properties belong to a specific endowment, also to the

trustee or trustees of the temple or math to which the

specific endowment is attached. Any refusal or

evasion to receive the notice shall be deemed to be

sufficient notice.

(2) A copy of the notice shall be published by

affixture –

(a)on the notice board of the office of the

Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner having

jurisdiction over the area in which the math or temple

concerned is situate;

(b)on the notice board of the front door of the math or

temple concerned;

(c)on the notice board of the office of the Municipal

Council including the Corporation of Chennai or the

Village Chavadi or the Panchayat Union Council and

if there is no Village Chavadi or Panchayat Union

Council, in some other public place in the village in

which the math or temple concerned is situate;

(d)in another conspicuous place in the locality which

may be selected by the Commissioner in his

discretion; and

13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

(e)in at least one daily newspaper published in the

language of the locality where the math or temple

concerned is situate:

Provided that where the proposal is in respect of a

specific endowment, the properties of which are not

situate in the village in which the temple, or math is

situate, the notice shall be published also in the

village or villages in which the properties are situate.

3. A copy of the [order sanctioning an exchange, sale

or mortgage, or lease for a term exceeding five years

shall be communicated by the Commissioner in the

form of proceedings under section 34 duly signed by

him to the trustee or trustees and the person having

interest, if any, who appeared in the proceedings and

shall be published in the manner laid down in clauses

(a) to (e) of sub-rule (2) of rule 2] for the publication

of the notice. The order shall also be published-

(a)in the District Gazette in the language of the

district concerned in the case of the math or temple or

specific endowments attached to a math or temple

situated in the district; or

(b)in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in the case

of a math or temple or specific endowments attached

to a math or temple situated in the City of Chennai or

14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

to specific endowments attached to maths or temples

situated in more than one district.”

11. It is the contention of the appellant that the details, required

under Clause (c) and Clause (f) of Rule 2, have not been set out in the

publication thereby preventing him from making well-meant and substantial

objections to the proposed alienation of the land belonging to the Temple. It

is the contention of the Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel

that the object of a publication is only to inform the people of the proposal

and invite objections and if there are procedural infractions, the same will

not vitiate the entire proceedings.

12. While Mr.Ramesh, the appellant, would strongly rely upon the

language of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 2 which uses the word ‘Shall’ and

contend that the requirements are mandatory and if there is a failure to

comply with the requirements, the entire transaction will have to be

nullified. Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondents would inter alia contend that a mere infraction of the

Rules may not lead to the transaction being nullified. He would also submit

15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

that the word ‘Shall’ appearing in these kind of Procedural Rules has been

read as may and there is a long line of judicial precedents to justify such

construction. He would also invite our attention to various judgments of

this Court as well as the Privy Council and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

support of his contentions.

13. We have considered the rival submissions.

14. The sum and substance of the grievance of the appellant is that

the requirements of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Alienation of Immovable

Trust Property Rules, 1960 have not been complied with in its letter and

spirit. No doubt certain requirements particularly the requirements in

Clauses (c) and (f) have not been set out in the impugned publication. The

question that arises is whether the failure to comply with the requirements

would lead to the transaction being nullified by the Court.

The object of the lease is for establishment of an Educational

Institution by the Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai 4.

As seen from the facts that the College has been established even in the year

16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

2021 – 2022 and there are 743 students pursuing various Courses in the said

College. The Government has already transferred an extent of about 3.56

acres of Government land for the purposes of the construction of the

College. The land belonging to the second respondent Temple measuring

about 2 acres and 40 cents is the subject matter of the lease transaction.

15. After the impugned publication, the first respondent has passed

an order on 29.10.2024 after considering the objections sanctioning the

proposed lease and the Government has also issued a Government Order in

G.O.Ms. No.511 dated 17.12.2024 approving the sanction so granted. The

said Government Order takes care of the requirement that the rent should be

increased by 15% once in three years. Therefore, the only question that

falls for consideration is whether the noncompliance with the requirements

of Rule 2 would vitiate the entire proceedings.

16. No doubt Rule 2 uses the word ‘shall’ which normally means that

the provision is mandatory. However, as rightly contended by

Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

respondents, the effect of the term ‘shall’ used in a statute or a rule can also

be held to be directory depending upon the object that is sought to be

achieved. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the objects

sought to be achieved by enactment of Section 34 of the Act, 1959, is only

to crub unauthorized alienation or long term lease of Temple properties by

the Trustees. If provisions of the Rules are examined with the object in

mind, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the word ‘shall’ used in Rule

2 of the Alienation of Immovable Trust Property Rules, could only be read

as directory and not mandatory.

17. The learned Senior Counsel would also invite our attention to the

judgment of Privy Council in Montreal Street Railway Company v.

Normandin, reported in AIR 1917 PC 142. In the said decision, the Privy

Council considered the principles that have been adopted in construing

statutes where a public Authority or a public functionary is invested with a

a public duty and a failure on the part of the such public functionary works

serious inconvenience or in justice to persons who have no control over

such public functionary. The Privy Council also considered the situation

18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

where the consequence of non-compliance was not spelt out in the

enactment itself. We have already extracted Section 34 of the Act, 1959, as

well as the Rules neither of them provide for the consequence of non-

compliance with the proviso to Section 34 of the Act of 1959. The proviso

to Section 34 the Act of 1959, obliges the public functionary viz. the

Commissioner, HR & CE Department, to make a publication before

granting sanction for alienation of immovable trust properties.

18. The Rules prescribe the content of the publication and the manner

in which it has to be published. The failure on the part of the Commissioner

to comply with the requirements of the Rules would definitely lead to

considerable prejudice to the Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple which is the

beneficiary of the lease. The compliance with the Rules is not within the

control of the said Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple. While considering a

like situation, the Hon’ble Privy Council in the judgment, referred to supra,

has held as follows:

“6. It is necessary to consider the principles

which have been adopted in construing statutes of

this character and the authorities so far as there are

19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

any on the particular question arising here. The

question whether provisions in a statute are directory

or imperative has very frequently arisen in this

country, but it has been said that no general rule can

be laid down, and that in every case the object of the

statutes must be looked at. The cases on the subject

will be found collected in Maxwell on Statutes, 5th.

ed. p. 596 and following pages. When the provisions

of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty

and the case is such that to hold null and void acts

done in neglect of this duty would work serious

general inconvenience or injustice to persons who

have no control over those entrusted with the duty

and at the same time would not promote the main

object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to

hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect

of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity

of the acts done. ...”

19. Similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

M/s. Sainik Motors, Jodhpur and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in

AIR 1961 SC 1480, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 12

20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

had held as follows:

“12. It is, however, contended that though the

section creates an option, the Rules and the

notification make the payment compulsory, and

attention is drawn to the word “shall” used both in

Rules 8 and 8-A and the notification whereas the

words in the two provisos to Section 4 are “may

accept”. The word ‘shall’ is ordinarily mandatory,

but it is sometimes not so interpreted if the context or

the intention otherwise demands. In In re Lord

Thurlow Ex Parte Official Receiver [1895 1 QB 724]

Lord Esher, M.R. observed at p. 729 that “the word

‘shall’ is not always obligatory. It may be directory”,

and Lopes, L.J. at p. 731 added:

“It is clear that the word ‘shall’ is not always

used in a mandatory sense. There is abundance of

authority to the contrary in cases where it has been

held to be directory only.”

It was thus that the word “shall” was held to

be directory only, in that case, by Coutts Trotter, C.J.,

in ManikkamPattar v. NanchappaChettiar[(1928)

MWN 441] by Russel, J., in In re Rustom [(1901) ILR

26 Bom 396 : (1901) 3 Bom LR 653] by

VenkatasubbaRao, J., in JethajiPeraji Firm v.

21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

Krishnayya [(1929) ILR 52 Mad 648, 656] and by

the Judicial Committee in Burjore and

BhavaniPershad v. MussumatBhagana [(1883) LR II

IA 7] .

20. Again in Ganesh Prasad SahKesari and another v. Lakshmi

Narayan Gupta, reported in AIR 1985 SC 964, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

considered the import of the word ‘shall’ used in Section 11A of the Bihar

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (3 of 1947) and the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 8 of the said judgment held as follows:

“8.The statute in which the expression is used

is the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1947. It is a statute enacted with a view

to providing a fetter on the right of a landlord to evict

tenant at his whim or fancy. The long title of the Act

shows that it was enacted to regulate the letting of

buildings and the rent for such buildings and to

prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in

the province of Bihar. A provision in such a statute

primarily enacted for the protection of tenants

against unreasonable eviction that the court is

required to find out whether the word “shall” was

22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

used as to make the provision mandatory or

imperative. Obviously if one ascertains the

intendment of the legislature, the purpose for which

the provision was enacted, the beneficent nature of

the statute and to protect the harassed tenant

obviously it does not require long argument to hold

that the expression “shall” was used not with a view

to making the provision mandatory or imperative but

it was to be directory. Such a construction would

advance the purpose for which the Act was enacted

namely the protection of tenants. It will also not

render the court powerless in the face of harsh facts

where striking off the defence would be nothing short

of miscarriage of justice.”

21. A similar issue emerged again before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Ammal Chandra Dutt v. II Additional District Judge and Others,

reported in AIR 1989 SCC 255, and there also the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that the term ‘shall’ used in Rule 18(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings

(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. A Division Bench

of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar question in K. Subbiah

Pandian and Ors. Vs. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Tirunelveli

23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

District and others reported in 2009 Writ L.R. 984, wherein the Division

Bench after referring to the judgment in Ammal Chandra Dutt v. II

Additional District Judge and Others, referred to supra, held that in the

absence of a stipulation with regard to the consequences of violation of the

Rule is an indication that the Rule is only directory and not mandatory. In

doing so, the Division Bench held as follows:

“48. As we have seen earlier, Rule 11 uses the

expression "shall", while prescribing the period for

which a lease of fishery rights could be granted.

Therefore it is to be seen if the Rule is mandatory and

inviolable.

49. In State of Punjab v. ShamlalMurari,

reported in 1976 (1) SCC 719, the Supreme Court

pointed out that the word "shall" (a word of slippery

semantics) in a rule is not decisive and the context of

the statute, the purpose of the prescription, the public

injury in the event of neglect of the rule and the

conspectus of circumstances bearing on the

importance of the condition, have all to be considered

before condemning a violation as fatal.

50. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court

held that the use of the word "shall" in a statute does

24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

not always indicate that the provisions are mandatory

in character. In Ammal Chandra Dutt v. Second

Additional District Judge, 1989 (1) SCC 1, the

Supreme Court held that where the situation and the

context warrants it, the word "shall" used in a section

or rule of a statute has to be construed as "may".

Again in Rubber House v. Excelsior Needle Industries

Pvt Ltd 1989 (2) SCC 413, the Supreme Court pointed

out that though the word in its ordinary import is

obligatory, it need not be given the same connotation,

but can be interpreted as directory.

51. In the case on hand, the Rules issued under

the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, regulating the grant

of lease of fishery rights, does not indicate the

consequences of the failure to make the period of

lease as 5 years. In other words, neither Rule 11 nor

any other Rule, makes a lease for a period lesser than

5 years, void or voidable. The absence of a

stipulation with regard to the consequences of a

violation of Rule 11, is an indication that the Rule is

only directory and not mandatory. Once it is

concluded that the Rule is only directory and not

mandatory, the participation of the Petitioner in the

auction in pursuance of the notification, would bind

him to the terms and conditions of the tender

25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

notification and would operate as estoppel.”

22. 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.

23. As we could gather from the provisions, the object that is sought

to be achieved is only to prevent indiscriminate lease or sale of Temple

properties by the Trustees. Therefore, once the Commissioner, HR & CE, a

public functionary, is seized of the entire matter and he had applied his mind

in sanctioning the lease procedural infractions like ones pointed out by the

appellant cannot nullify the entire transaction as pointed out by the Privy

Council, even in the year 1917 and infraction of a Rule by a public

26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

functionary, who is entrusted with a duty having a very serious effect on a

person who has no control over the said public functionary will have to be

viewed leniently by the Courts and this has been the view taken by the

Courts for long is also evident from the very language used by the Privy

Council, wherein it observes that it has been the practice to hold such

provisions to be directory only and the non adherence to them will not affect

the validity of the acts done. 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.

24. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal fails and it is accordingly

dismissed. We however make it clear that the respondents will follow the

directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in its interim order

dated 15.11.2021 made in WP No.24156 of 2021 and the entire transaction

will also be subject to the result of the said Writ Petition. The parties will

27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions

are closed.

(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)

24.02.2025

jv

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

Speaking Order

28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

To

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable

Endowments Department,

119 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 039.

2. The Executive Officer,

Sri Somanathaswamy Temple, Kolathur,

Sannathi St, Sarojini Nagar,

Kolathur, Chennai 600 099.

29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.105 of 2025

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

jv

W.A.No. 105 of 2025

and CMP. Nos. 582 and 586 of 2025

24.02.2025

30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis