Madras High Court
P.Krishnamoorthy @ Krishna Pillai vs The Commissioner on 2 September, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.23667 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.23667 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.22613 of 2022
P.Krishnamoorthy @ Krishna Pillai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nungambakkan,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Chennai Division - 2,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Ramakrishna Mutt Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Chennai Division,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Yadava Street,
Padi, Chennai – 600 050.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Ramanatheeswar Thirukoil,
Porur, Chennai – 600 116. ... Respondents
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
W.P.No.23667 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned proceeding dated 29.08.2022 made in
N.Dis.No.47909/2022/D2 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the
same and consequently to direct the first respondent to entertain the Revision
Petition dated 26.08.2022 filed before the first respondent by condoning the
delay in filing the Revision Petition and to dispose the same on merits in
accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Appaswamee
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
ORDER
Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. After hearing both sides, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, by dispensing with the requirement of filing of counter on the respondents.
3. The facts on record indicates that the second respondent/Joint Commissioner had passed an order dated 27.01.2016 under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the TNHR&CE Act) for evicting the petitioner from the property.
___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 8 W.P.No.23667 of 2022
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the aforesaid order passed by the second respondent/Joint Commissioner under Section 78 of the TNHR&CE Act was not received by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has approached the first respondent/Commissioner under Section 21 of the TNHR&CE Act.
5. It is submitted that the Office of the first respondent through the third respondent has now returned the papers stating that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is belated and is liable to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesan, Represented by its Power Agent G.Rukmani Ganesan Vs The Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and others, 2019 (7) SCC 108.
6. This Writ Petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents stating that the delay cannot be condoned and therefore on this count also this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 8 W.P.No.23667 of 2022
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. This very issue was considered by the Madurai Bench of this Court in Gopal Vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Chennai-24 and others, in W.P(MD).Nos.3019, 3074 to 3087 of 2022, vide its order dated 17.02.2022.
9. The relevant portion from the order reads as under:-
"13. The Court, while dealing with the power of the Court under Section 34 to condone the delay, held that Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was special law and since specific period for condoning the delay has been prescribed, the question of applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, did not arise.
14. A reading of sub-clause 7 to Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which has been extracted above, indicates that an application has to be filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order, which is sought to be revised before the Commissioner. There is no period prescribed for filing such application beyond the period prescribed therein. There is no indication in the scheme of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 in Section 21 that principle akin to section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded.
___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 8 W.P.No.23667 of 2022 Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under:-
"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.-The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section."
15. No prejudice will be caused if the application under Section 21 of the HR&CE Act, filed by the petitioner for revision of the order. If the second respondent is entertained beyond the period of limitation, provided the other condition regarding pre~deposit arrears of rent is made by them before the first respondent Commissioner in terms of Section 34 A of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
16. Considering the same, I am inclined to allow these writ petitions by directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the respective petitioners complying with the other requirements of the Section 34 A of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The petitioners are therefore directed to deposit the arrears of rent within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such deposit has not been already made and file a proof before the first respondent. On such deposit/filing of proof, the ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 8 W.P.No.23667 of 2022 application filed by the respective petitioners shall be numbered and disposed on merits and in accordance with law thereafter.
17. Needless to state that before passing such order, the petitioner shall also be heard in person or through an authorised representative as per the protocol placed on account of the outbreak of Covid~19 pandemic. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
10. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this Writ Petition by directing the first respondent to number the revision petition/application and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law.
11. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order arb ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 8 W.P.No.23667 of 2022 To
1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkan, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Chennai Division - 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramakrishna Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Chennai Division, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Yadava Street, Padi, Chennai – 600 050.
4.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Ramanatheeswar Thirukoil, Porur, Chennai – 600 116.
___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 8 W.P.No.23667 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb W.P.No.23667 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.22613 of 2022 02.09.2022 ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 8