The Madras High Court on Friday rejected an application filed by Swami Nithyananda seeking appointment as the Madathipathi or Head of three Mutts – Sri Somanatha Swami Temple & Mutt at Thiruvarur, Sri Arunachala Gnanadesikar Swami Temple & Mutt at Vedaranyam, and Sri PoKaSathukal Madam at Vedaranyam.
The Bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan dismissed the petition on the grounds that Nithyananda was not even in India to be able to administer the temples.
Nithyananda moved the High Court against the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, directing the Assistant Commissioner to appoint Executive Officers to administer the properties of three temples as per Section 60 of the HR&CE Act.
The petitioner contended that he was nominated by earlier Madathipathi, Sri Swami Athamanada, to administer and control the Mutts. The nomination deed was also presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration.
Due to some dispute, however, Swami Athamanada lodged complaints against Nithyananda. He further apprised the court that he had filed a civil suit to declare him as the Madathipathi of the Mutts and also to restrain Athamanada Swami from interfering with the affairs of the temple in which an interim injunction was granted in his favour.
The petitioner contended that while this interim injunction existed, the Commissioner had passed the impugned orders based on complaints by some private persons. The officials had no role to play in the affairs of the Mutt as he had been duly appointed by the earlier Madathipathi.
The impugned order was passed without granting him an opportunity to hear and was thus violative of the principles of natural justice, noted Nithyananda.
He said the order passed during the pendency of the civil suit was non-est in law and unsustainable.
The Counsel appearing for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board submitted that all Mutt properties would come within the purview of the HR & CE Act. Therfore, the contention raised by Nithyananda was not legally sustainable.
He further contended that the Mutt owned several properties, some of which were alienated illegally by the Madathipathi and their power agents for their personal gains. The Department also produced documents to support their case.
The Counsel appearing for the department argued that the nomination deed executed in favour of Nithyananda was itself under question as it had not been registered before the Registering Authority due to invalidation.
He apprised the Court that the department had passed the impugned order after following due procedures, to protect the properties of the Mutt.
The single-judge Bench rejected Nithyananda’s petition on the grounds that his nomination was invalid due to the cancellation of power vested to the earlier Madathipathi. The High Court further noted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice as an elaborate enquiry was conducted before passing the order.
Since the whereabouts of Nithyananda were unknown, the power vested by him to his representatives was doubtful. The single-judge Bench proceeded to dismiss Nithyananda’s plea.
The petitioner challenged this verdict before the Division Bench on the grounds that the single judge Bench had erred in holding that his whereabouts were unknown.
Nithyananda submitted that his whereabouts were a part of public knowledge. He was at Kailasa, a nation near Ecuador, which had diplomatic relations with over 50 nations and was even recognised by the United Nations.
The petitioner further contended that the nomination in his favour was already a subject matter of the suit before the Sub Court in Nagapattinam. Therefore, the single judge Bench had erred in holding that it was not valid.
The HR & CE submitted that there were no reasons to interfere with the single-judge order. It argued that since Nithyananda had pending criminal cases against him, he could not be appointed as a Mutt head, especially when the nomination itself was questionable.
The Division Bench rejected Nithyananda’s petition on want of merit. It asked the petitioner how he would be able to administer the properties of the temple when he was not even residing in the country.