A division bench comprising justices R Banumathi and R Subbiah, in their order, said, "... 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 (Nithyananda) is now said to have been removed from the position" (as Mutt head)."
However, the bench said, "... When certain allegations are made against the trustees of the Mutt by the disciples and devotees of the Mutt, instead of making Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) department to undergo ordeal of trial by filing a suit, the Commissioner must have power to deal with the situation."
As per the Section 59 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Commissioner or any two or more persons who have obtained the consent of the Commissioner in writing, can only institute a suit for removal of a trustee of a Mutt or a specific endowment attached to the Mutt.
"Instituting a suit for removal and finality of suit will take considerable time and by which time, much damage could be done to the Mutt," the court said.
It opined that to have more regulatory control over mutts, the state can consider to amend the provisions of section 59 of Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act by giving suo motu powers to the Commissioner, as found in Section 51 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, 1987 (30 of 1987).
Petitioners had prayed for the court's direction to forbear Nithyananda from holding the post of mutt head, to take custody, protection and administer of the endowment of the over 1500 year old saivite mutt besides quashing his appointment as mutt head and declare his appointment as void-ab-initio.
