Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.M.KALAISELVI MOHAN versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.M.Kalaiselvi Mohan v. Commissioner - W.A. No.590 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1759 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED : 05.06.2007

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.A. No.590 of 2007

and

M.P. No.1 of 2007

Smt. K.M. Kalaiselvi Mohan ... Appellant Vs

1. The Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board Nungambakkam High Road

Chennai 600 034.

2. The Joint Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board Near R.D.O. Office

Sathuvacheri Post

Vellore 9.

3. The Executive Officer

Arulmigu Sri Varadharaja Perumal Thirukoil

Old Katpadi

Katpadi

Vellore District. ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated made in W.P.No.4020 of 2007 dated 05.02.2007. For appellant : Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan for Mr. V. Venkatesaaan For respondents : Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 and R2. Mr. M. Sundar for R.3. JUDGMENT



( DELIVERED BY P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)

The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.02.2007 made in W.P.No.4020 of 2007, in and by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Government under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, "the Act"), by filing appeal against the order of the first respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai, dated 15.12.2006. The first respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, has passed the said order, after conducting enquiry by dissolving the Thiruppani Committee of Arulmighu Sri Varadharaja Perumal Thirukoil, Old Katpadi, Vellore District headed by Mrs. Kalaiselvi Mohan, the appellant herein, by virtue of his powers under Rule 54 (4) of the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institution Rules ( in short, "the Rules") framed under Section 116 (2) of the Act.

2. As against the said order of the first respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, passed under Rule 54 (4) of the Rules stated above, the appellant has filed the writ petition stating that there is no appeal or revision provided against the impugned order of the first respondent. It is, while considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, especially with reference to Section 114, the learned single Judge has found that the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner and in view of the said finding, has given a direction as stated above while disposing the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, for invoking the appellate power of the Government under Section 114 of the Act, it is possible only after filing an application before the Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act, which imposes a power on the Commissioner to call for the records and pass orders, in effect amounting to revision. To substantiate his contention he would also rely upon Section 114 (3) of the Act, which states as follows: "114 (3). No application to the Government for the exercise of their power under this section shall be made in respect of any matter unless an application had already been made in respect of the same matter to the Commissioner under section 21 and had been disposed of by him."

4. On the other hand, Section 114(1) of the Act categorically confers the powers of appeal to the Government by calling for the records of the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. The said provision which runs as follows: "Section 114. Power of Government to call for records and pass orders. (1)The Government may call for and examine the record of, [the Commissioner, (or the Additional Commissioner) or any Joint or Deputy or Assistant Commissioner] or of any trustee in respect of any proceeding, not being a proceeding, in respect of which a suit or an appeal or application to a Court or an appeal to the Government is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or proprity of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly: Provided that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations. (2)The Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order, pending the exercise of their powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (3) No application to the Government for the exercise of their power under this section shall be made in respect of any matter unless an application had already been made in respect of the same matter to the Commissioner under section 21 and had been disposed of by him. (4) Every application to the Government for the exercise of their power under this section shall be preferred within three months from the date on which the order of proceeding to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. "

5. A combined reading of the said provision, viz., Section 114 of the Act shows that, it is not, as if, in cases where the Commissioner himself passes an order, once again the matter has to be referred to him under Section 21 of the Act. Section 114 (3) of the Act would be made applicable only in cases where any other officer other than the Commissioner passes order. In the present case, the impugned order itself has been passed by the Commissioner, and therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that application has to be moved before the Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act, and thereafter, file appeal to the Government under Section 114. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, the appellant is free to file appeal as directed by the learned single Judge, within a period of four weeks from today. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. kh

To

1. The Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board Nungambakkam High Road

Chennai 600 034.

2. The Joint Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board Near R.D.O. Office

Sathuvacheri Post

Vellore 9.

3. The Executive Officer

Arulmigu Sri Varadharaja Perumal Thirukoil Old Katpadi

Katpadi

Vellore District.

[PRV/10475]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.