Karnataka High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs Hindu Religious Institutions And ... on 16 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 848 (KAR.), AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1326, 2020 (3) AKR 167
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.5297 OF 2020
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 5266 OF 2020 ( GM-ST/RN)
IN W.P.No. 5297/2020
BETWEEN:
1. PRADEEP KUMAR
GRANDSON OF NARAYANAIAH
(3RD APPELLANT BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER)
SON OF NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. NAGESH
SON OF LATE RAMACHANDRA
(2ND APPELLANT BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER)
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT HARADAPUR VILLAGE
GANJALA GUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 123.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SURESH DESAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUIONS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD
KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
B.M.ROAD, RANGOLI HALLA
HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
B.M.ROAD, RANGOLI HALLA
HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.
2
4. TASILDHAR
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
5. H.N.RAMASWAMY
SON OF LATE H.R.NARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
6. H.N.CHINNASWAMY
SON OF LATE H.R.NARAYANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
7. H.N.DHARMARAJ
SON OF LATE H.R.NARAYANAIAH
(1ST APPELLANT BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER)
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HALADURUPURA VILLAGE
GANJULAGUDU (POST)
ARAKULAGUDU TALUK - 573 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4
SRI. C.R. VENKATARAM, ADV. FOR R-5 TO R-7)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 07.02.2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A. AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2
(THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT), DATED:
10.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND REMIND THE MATER BACK
TO R-2 FRESH DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,
BRINGING THE LEGAL HEIRS ON RECORD AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 5266/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RANGAIAH
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH
AGED 52 YEARS.
3
3. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH
S/O RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
4. SRI. DHARMARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
GRANDSON OF HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
PUTTAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR;
5. SRI. RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED 72 YEARS.
VENKATACHALAIAH
SINCE DEAD HIS LR:
6. A. MANJUNATH
S/O VENKATACHALAIAH,
AGED 50 YEARS.
RAMASWAMY
SINCE DEAD HIS LR:
7. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O. RAMASWAMY
AGED 30 YEARS.
DAKSHINA MURTHY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR:
8. SRI. NAGESH
S/O LATE DAKSHINA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
9. SRI. H.R.MANJUNATHA
S/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
10. SRI. H.R. RAMACHANDRA
S/O. THIMMAIAH,
AGED 65 YEARS.
11. SRI. KRISHNAIAH
S/O VENKATAIAH,
AGED 72 YEARS.
4
12. SRI. CHINNASWAMY
S/O SUBRAYAPPA,
AGED 61 YEARS.
13. RAJAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAIAH,
AGED 65 YEARS.
14. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O SUBRAYA,
AGED 70 YEARS.
15. SRI. RAMASWAMY
S/O PUTTAIAH SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/A HARADURUPURA VILLAGE
GANJALGODU POST
ARAKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.N. NITHISH FOR
SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJPET, NEAR FORT
BENGALURU - 560 018.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.
3. THE TAHSILDAR AND TALUK MUZRAI OFFICER
ARKALGUD TALUK, ARKALGUD
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
H.R.NARAYANAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.S
4. SRI. H.N.RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O H.R.NARAYANAIAH.
5. SRI. H.N. DHARMARAJ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O H.R.NARAYANAIAH.
5
6. SRI. H.N. CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O H.R.NARAYANAIAH.
7. SRI. H.R. RAMACHANDRA
S/O H.B. RAJAPPA,
AGED 70 YEARS.
8. SRI. NARAYANAIAH
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O RANGAIAH.
RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 8 ARE
R/O HARADURUPURA VILLAGE
GANJALGODU POST
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
9. SRI. SANNAIAH
S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED 75 YEARS.
PUTTASWAMY
SINCE DEAD HIS LR:
10. SMT. PADMA
W/O LATE PUTTASWAY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
SRINIVASAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:
11. SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH
S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS.
CHANNAKESHAVAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:
12. SMT. SHARADHA
W/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVAIAH
AGED 70 YEARS.
DHANANJAYA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR:
13. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE DHANANJAYA
AGED 60 YEARS.
6
14. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O DHANANJAYA,
AGED 40 YEARS.
15. SRI. SHESHAPPA
S/O LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED 50 YEARS.
16. SRI. RANGANATH
S/O NARAYANAIAH,
AGED 57 YEARS.
17. H.C. THIRUMALEGOWDA,
AGED 75 YEARS
CONVENOR OF SRI RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE.
18. SRI. SHANKARAIAH
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO. 9 TO 18 ARE
R/O HARADURUPURA VILLAGE
GANJALGODU POST
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. K. DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. C.R.VENKATARAM, ADV. FOR R-4 TO R-6
R-9 TO R-13, R-14 TO R-17 - SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2
AT ANNEX-F AND ORDER DATED: 07.02.2020 PASSED BY THE R-
1 AT ANNEX-P IN REVISION PETITION NO.22/2017-18 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
7
ORDER
Both these petitions take exception to the common impugned Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Respondent No.1-Commisioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments dismissing the Revision Petitions filed by the Petitioners thereby confirming the impugned Order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District whereby the petition filed by the private respondents was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. The present case is an unfortunate depiction of the extremely sorry state of affairs which is rampant among government authorities entrusted with the onerous responsibility of performing quasi-judicial functions which, when exercised by the authorities in utter, total and blatant disregard and violation/contravention of the cardinal principles of natural justice would not only prejudicially affect a person's valuable legal rights resulting in miscarriage and failure of justice, but would also lead to apathy and erode the already fast depleting faith and 8 confidence of the masses in administrative and quasi- judicial authorities dealing with the rights of parties.
3. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it would be worthwhile to recall the words of Late V.R.Krishna Iyer speaking for the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner- AIR 1978 SC 851:
"Now we move on to a close-up of the last submission bearing on the Commission's duty to function within the leading strings of natural justice.
Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the bone of a healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya's Arthasastra, the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these depths for the present except to indicate that 9 the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, if not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system. The dichotomy between administrative and quasi- judicial functions vis-a-vis the doctrine of natural justice is presumably obsolescent after Kraipak- [1970] 1 SCR 45 in India and Schmit [1969] 2 Ch. 149 in England."
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts leading to the present petitions are as follows:
Aggrieved by an Order dated 12.06.2001 passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the private respondents initiated proceedings in DVS/CR/72-2003-04 before the Deputy Commissioner-2nd Respondent herein. By the impugned Order 10.10.2017, the 2nd Respondent allowed the claim of the private respondents. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein preferred a Revision Petitions in ADM 7/RP 13/2017-18 and ADM 7/RP 22/2017-18 before the Commissioner-1st Respondent. By the impugned Order dated 07.02.2020, the Commissioner dismissed the 10 aforesaid revision petitions thereby confirming the impugned order dated 10.10.2017. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders dated 10.10.2017 and 07.02.2020, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petitions.
5. At the outset, it has to be stated that both the aforesaid impugned Orders viz., the basic/original Order dated 10.10.2017 and the Revisional Order dated 07.02.2020 were passed by the same person, i.e., Smt.Rohini Sindhuri, IAS, firstly as the Deputy Commissioner dealing with the aforesaid DVS/CR/72-2003- 04 and secondly, as the Commissioner dealing with the aforesaid revision petitions in ADM 7/RP 13/2017-18 and ADM 7/RP 22/2017-18, which were filed by the petitioners herein challenging her basic/original Order.
6. The learned AGA appearing for the State and its authorities and learned Counsel for the private respondents in both the petitions fairly do not dispute this factual position. In other words, it is not in dispute that the aforesaid person/officer not only passed the basic/original impugned Order dated 10.10.2017, but has also passed the 11 revisional impugned Order dated 07.02.2020, thereby dismissing the revision petitions filed by petitioners challenging her basic/original order and thereby confirmed her own original order dated 10.10.2017. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present writ petitions challenging the impugned orders.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Orders are violative of all basic principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the aforesaid officer having passed the basic/original impugned order dated 10.10.2017 in her capacity as the Deputy Commissioner, it was not open for her to also adjudicate upon the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the said order by sitting in judgment upon her own decision as the Commissioner-Revisional Authority. Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the very same officer functioning as the Commissioner/Superior Authority whereby she has confirmed the basic/original order passed by her in the capacity of the Deputy 12 Commissioner/Inferior Authority is in clear contravention of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order sheet maintained before the Commissioner-Revisional Authority and submitted that the revision petitions were posted on 03.01.2020, on which day the matters were adjourned to 28.02.2020 since the Commissioner was busy with other work as noted in the order sheet. Meanwhile, vide order dated 02.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.39268/2018 c/w W.P.No.35555/2018 arising out of the same subject matter, this Court had directed the revision petitions to be disposed off within a period of six months. It was pointed out that on 03.01.2020 when the revision petitions were adjourned to 28.02.2020, the aforesaid Smt.Rohini Sindhuri was not the Commissioner-Revisional Authority and that she was appointed to the said post only subsequently, in fact just prior to 07.02.2020, when she passed the impugned order as the Commissioner-revisional authority. 13
9. Learned counsel contended that the aforesaid order sheet would indicate that despite the matters having been adjourned to 28.02.2020, the same were suo-moto and unilaterally advanced/preponed to 06.02.2020 by the aforesaid officer-Commissioner without notifying or issuing any notice, whatsoever to the petitioners or their respective counsel. It was submitted that under these circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioners or their counsel to be present before the Commissioner on 06.02.2020 when the revision petitions were taken up for hearing. It was pointed out that strangely enough, even though no notice regarding preponement/advancement of the cases from 28.02.2020 to 06.02.2020 had been issued to the respondents or their counsel also, they were not only present before the Commissioner on 06.02.2020, but they also made submissions on merits of the matters. Immediately thereafter, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners or their counsel, the Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 dismissing the revision petitions thereby confirming the 14 original order dated 10.10.2017 which had also been passed by her as the Deputy Commissioner.
10. Learned counsel invited my attention to the proviso to Section 63 of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997(for short, 'the said Act') in order to contend that the said provision not only specifically mandated that the Commissioner-Revisional Authority should hear the petitioners before passing any order, but it also prohibited her from passing any order without hearing the petitioners who had preferred the revision petitions. It was submitted that the material on record would clearly indicate that the petitioners were not heard by the Commissioner before she passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 which was contrary to the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 63 of the Act. It was therefore contended that viewed from this angle also, the impugned orders are clearly violative of principles of natural justice, in particular, the rule of audi alteram partem and that the same deserve to be set aside on this ground also.
15
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before proceeding to examine the same, it would be beneficial to allude to principles of natural justice which are pressed into service by the petitioners.
NATURAL JUSTICE
13. Natural justice is a concept of common law and represents higher procedural principles developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency must follow while taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual. Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. In a welfare state like India, the role and jurisdiction of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial authorities is increasing at a rapid pace. The concept of Rule of Law would lose its validity if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging these functions in a fair and just manner.
16
14. Natural justice is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. Administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative 17 authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
16. Though the principles of natural justice encompasses several facets and rules, for the purpose of the instant case, it would suffice to refer to the following two rules:
a) Nemo judex in causa sua - One should not be a judge in his own cause or the rule against bias
b) Audi alteram partem - Rule of fair hearing, i.e., both sides must be heard by giving them sufficient opportunity before passing any order or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard
17. According to the petitioners, both the aforesaid rules of natural justice have been violated, contravened and breached in the instant case and consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on this ground 18 alone. With this background, let us proceed to examine the material on record and the submissions of the parties:
NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA
18. The principle of natural justice 'Nemo judex in causa sua' consists of the rule against bias or interest and is based on three maxims:
• No man shall be a judge in his own cause;
• Justice should not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done;
• Judges including quasi-judicial authorities, like Caesar's wife should be above suspicion
19. 'Nemo Judex In Causa Sua' is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is the minimal requirement of the natural justice that the authority giving decision must be composed of impartial persons acting fairly, without prejudice and bias. Any mental condition that would prevent a judge or juror from being fair and impartial is called bias. Bias is a particular influential power which sways the judgment; the inclination or propensity of the mind towards 19 a particular object. It can also be described as predisposition or a preconceived opinion that prevents a person from impartially evaluating facts that have been presented for determination; a prejudice which impairs/obstructs a fair decision from being passed.
20. There is no gainsaying the fact that an officer or a quasi-judicial authority who functions or acts as an inferior authority renders his decision after forming his opinion about the facts and circumstances obtained in the case. The legality, soundness and correctness of the said decision is tested by way of an appeal or a revision or a challenge preferred before the superior authority. The officer who has passed the order as inferior court or authority cannot legally test the correctness of his own decision while exercising the powers of the superior court in appeal or a revision to his own order. In the event the appeal/revision against the inferior court or authority is allowed to be heard by the same officer or authority who has passed the order impugned in appeal/revision, it would render its very purpose illusory, elusive, otiose and 20 nugatory frustrating the purpose of its filing before a higher authority who is sitting in judgment over the order of the inferior authority.
21. An appeal/revision before a superior authority to an order passed by an inferior authority is conceptually different from a review. A review is reconsideration of the subject by the same judge/authority to cure an error which may be apparent on the face of the record while an appeal/revision is a re-hearing of the matter by a superior Court/authority to test the correctness of the decision of the lower court/authority. Allowing the appeal/revision to be heard by the same officer who had passed the basic order would tantamount to reducing the appellate/revisional jurisdiction into that of review. It is therefore clear that no person should hear an appeal/revision against his own order since the same would be opposed to the very basic principles of natural justice as stated supra.
22. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man can be a judge in his own cause. The above principle is not confined to its literal interpretation to 21 mean that if a person is a party in a litigation, he cannot sit and decide the same as a Judge but may also be extended in cases where he has some interest in the litigation or in any party to the litigation and even to cases where he happens to be a witness of one of the parties. The said principle would also be attracted in a case where a quasi- judicial authority may not be a party to the cause of action in any manner aforesaid, but has delivered the order/judgment which is to be tested in appeal/revision. Thus, it is cardinal that in the matter of dispensation of justice, certain rules have to be observed which manifestly ensure that justice has been done and for that purpose, it is essential that veracity of the judgment passed by a person ought not to be allowed to be tested by the same person in appeal/revision and rather it should be tested by another person.
23. To say the least, permitting a person to sit in judgment over a decision rendered by himself/herself would tantamount to subverting the rule of law as well as its due process and is nothing short of abuse of process of law and 22 authority. Consequently, any such order by a quasi-judicial authority sitting in appeal/revision whereby the very same person hears and decides the said appeal/revision arising out of an order passed by himself/herself is clearly a nullity, non-est and in contravention of the principle of natural justice and the same deserves to be set aside.
24. Coming to facts of the case on hand, indisputably, both basic/original order dated 10.10.2017 and the revisional order dated 07.02.2020 were passed by the aforesaid officer, Smt.Rohini Sindhuri. In this context, it is relevant to state that it is not as if the said officer was not aware that the order dated 10.10.2017 was passed by herself as can be seen from the order dated 07.02.2020, wherein she not only categorically refers to her own original order dated 10.10.2017 but also to the entire history of the litigation between the Petitioners and the private respondents and the facts and circumstances that emerge from the material on record before her. In fact, she purports to assign detailed reasons after careful scrutiny to come to the conclusion that there was no error committed by herself 23 when she passed the order dated 10.10.2017. Without elaborating further, suffice it to say that applying the aforesaid principle of natural justice, 'Nemo Judex In Causa Sua', I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 deserves to be set aside by this Court.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
25. The first and foremost principle of the rule of natural justice is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard or the rule of fair hearing, i.e., both sides must be heard by giving them sufficient opportunity before passing any order. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any 24 adverse order is passed against him. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. In other words, it is now well settled that any order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to either party is vitiated as being violative of the principle of natural justice and consequently, without reference to the merits/demerits of the claims of either side, such an order deserves to be set aside.
26. The undisputed material on record discloses that the revision petitions were posted on 03.01.2020 on which day the matters were adjourned to 28.02.2020 since then the Commissioner was busy with other work as noted in the order sheet. Meanwhile, vide Order dated 02.01.2020 passed in W.P.39268/2018 and W.P.35555/2018 arising out of the same subject matter, this Court had directed the revision petitions to be disposed off within a period of six months. In fact, on 03.01.2020 when the revision petitions were adjourned to 28.02.2020, aforesaid Smt.Rohini Sindhuri was not the Commissioner and she was appointed to the said post only subsequently.
25
27. The undisputed order sheet maintained before the Revisional authority would indicate that despite the matters having been adjourned from 03.01.2020 to 28.02.2020 with notice to appear only on 28.02.2020 and not on any earlier date, the revision petitions were unilaterally advanced/preponed by the said officer- revisional authority from the actual date, i.e., 28.02.2020 to 06.02.2020. The order sheet also reveals that this advancement/preponement was done without notifying or issuing any notice whatsoever to the Petitioners or their respective counsel. In fact, neither the respondents nor their counsel were notified about the same. Under these circumstances, there was absolutely no occasion for the revision petitions to be called out for hearing on 06.02.2020. However, shockingly enough, the matters were called out on 06.02.2020 and even more surprisingly, respondents were not only present before revisional authority, but they also submitted their arguments in the matter.
28. As stated supra, the revision petitions having been adjourned from 03.01.2020 to 28.02.2020, in the 26 absence of any steps taken by either party or the revisional authority suo moto to advance/prepone the case from 28.02.2020, there was no warrant for the cases to be taken up on 06.02.2020, much less for the Petitioners or their counsel to be present before the Commissioner on 06.02.2020, when the revision petitions were taken up for hearing. On 06.02.2020, immediately after hearing the respondents and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners or their counsel by noting their absence, that too on a date the matters were never notified, the said officer proceeded to pass the impugned Order dated 07.02.2020 dismissing the revision petitions, thereby confirming the original/basic order dated 10.10.2017, which had also been passed by her very own self as the Deputy Commissioner.
29. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 63 of the said Act under which the revision petitions were filed by the petitioners before the revisional authority. Section 63 of the 27 Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 reads as under:
"63. Revisional Powers of Commissioner.- (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the records and proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the finding or order recorded or passed by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and may either annul, reverse, modify or confirm the said finding or order or may direct the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to make further enquiry or take such additional evidence as he may think necessary or he may himself take the additional evidence Provided that the Commissioner shall not record or pass any order without giving the party affected thereby an opportunity of being heard."
30. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 63 of the said Act makes it clear in unequivocal terms that the rule of audi alteram partem has been statutorily recognized and incorporated into Section 63 of the said Act which deals with revision petitions before the Commissioner. In fact, the proviso which incorporates the mandatory requirement of 28 adherence to the principle of natural justice is couched in the negative and clearly creates an embargo/restriction placed upon the Commissioner prohibiting him from dealing with and passing any order in a revision petition without hearing the affected party. The words 'shall not record' or 'pass any order' are of wide connotation indicating the mandatory requirement cast upon the revisional authority to hear a party before proceeding any further in the matter. It was therefore incumbent upon the Commissioner-revisional authority to grant sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners and hear them since they were undisputedly the affected parties before taking up the revision petitions and passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2020.
31. As stated supra, the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 has been passed without giving/affording any opportunity to the petitioners and their counsel as mandatorily required in the proviso to Section 63 of the said Act. Consequently, the impugned order which is vitiated not only on account of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem but also for contravention of the mandatory 29 requirement contained in the said proviso to Section 63 clearly deserves to be quashed on this ground also.
32. A perusal of the order sheet maintained by the revisional authority will indicate that while the first date of hearing was on 22.12.2017, the matters were adjourned on several subsequent dates up to 06.07.2018 on which day, it stood adjourned to 07.09.2018 by the erstwhile Commissioner. The order sheet also indicates that from 07.09.2018 till 28.02.2020, the matters were continuously adjourned on account of the revisional authority being busy and pre-occupied with other work. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 also reveals that while the aforesaid officer has referred to all the dates of hearing from 22.12.2017 to 06.07.2018, she has conveniently not referred to any of the dates of hearing from 07.09.2018 up to 28.02.2020. Instead, she notes that after 06.07.2018, the next date of hearing was 07.02.2020 which is completely contrary to the order sheet maintained in the revision petitions. These discrepancies, 30 inconsistencies and contradictions also indicate that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.
33. The order sheet also discloses that the revisional authority purports to take up the matter on 06.02.2020 by making a note, as if she has been directed by this Court to take up the matter on that day itself. In this context, a perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 02.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.39268/2018 c/w W.P.No.35555/2018 will indicate that the revisional authority was directed to dispose off the matters within a period of six months, i.e., on or before 02.07.2020. Under these circumstances, there was no warrant for the aforesaid officer to take up and decide the matter on 06.02.2020 itself, that too by advancing/preponing the cases and without notifying the petitioner on the ground that there were directions by this Court. Under these circumstances also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being violative of principles of natural justice.
34. The aforesaid discussion clearly establishes that the impugned orders are nothing short of flagrant and 31 blatant violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, the undisputed material on record clearly establishes beyond any doubt whatsoever that there has been utter, total, open and complete negation of principles of natural justice by the aforesaid officer/quasi-judicial authority while passing the impugned orders which cannot be countenanced by this Court and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10.10.2017 and 07.02.2020 deserve to be set aside by this Court.
35. Consequently, the matters are remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties. It is needless to say that I have not dealt with the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and the same are hereby kept open.
36. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the writ petitions in W.P.5297/2020 and W.P.5266/2020 are hereby allowed;32
(ii) Rule is issued and made absolute in both the petitions;
(iii) The impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent-Deputy Commissioner in DVS/CR/72-2003-04 dated 10.10.2017 is hereby quashed;
(iv) So also, the impugned common order passed by the 1st Respondent-Commissioner in ADM 7/RP 13/2017-
18 and ADM 7/RP 22/2017-18 dated 07.02.2020 vide Annexure-A in W.P.No.5297/2020 and Annexure-P in W.P.5266/2020 is also quashed;
(v) Both matters are remitted back to the 2nd Respondent-Deputy Commissioner to be decided afresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to all parties;
(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are hereby left open.
(vii) Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order as well as all the other papers to the 2nd Respondent- 33 Deputy Commissioner to enable him to proceed further in the matter;
(viii) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka;
(ix) Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments, State of Karnataka.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc/Srl.