Point of Law: Mere fact that a statutory authority is empowered to follow the procedure as nearly may be in accordance with procedure under C.P.C. to the trial of suits or hearing of appeals, the statutory authority shall not become a Court and held that the Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of section 6 (7) the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959

JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by Sree Mattannur Mahadeva Kshetra Samithi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act challenging Ext.P12 order passed by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB) transferring O.A. No. 18/2007 pending before the Deputy Commissioner to his own file in exercise of powers under section 19(1)(a) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for short ‘the MHR & CE Act’).

2. Sree Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram (Temple), Mattannur, Kannur District in the erstwhile Malabar area originally belonged to Pullery Illam. The Karanavathy (Ooralan) of the family, late Mahadevi Antharjanam vide Deed No. 333 of 1972 of SRO Mattannur, transferred the temple along with its properties to the petitioner society on condition that the temple and the temple properties shall not be alienated or transferred. While so, O.A. No. 18/2007 was initiated before the Deputy Commissioner, MDB under section 57(a) of the MHR & CE Act at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 to enquire and decide as to whether the temple is a religious institution. The Senior Superintendent in charge of the post of Deputy Commissioner in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department vide Ext.P3 order dated 7.7.2010 decided the dispute in the said original application and declared that the temple is a religious institution. Exhibit P3 order was challenged before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery as O.S. No. 418/2010 contending that the Senior Superintendent in charge of the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to pass Ext.P3 order. The petitioner also preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department against Ext.P3 order as A.P. No. 9/2010 invoking the provisions under section 61 of the MHR & CE Act. The Commissioner dismissed A.P. No. 9/2010 by Ext.P4 order dated 25.1.2011 confirming Ext.P3 order. Against Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 114/2011 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thalassery. Both O.S. No. 418/2010 and O.S. No. 114/2011 were tried jointly and the Court by Ext. P5 judgment dated 21.12.2013 declared Ext.P3 as an order passed without authority as the Senior Superintendent in charge of the post of Deputy Commissioner is not a person authorized by the authority competent under section 19(4) of the MHR & CE Act to exercise the powers of Deputy Commissioner under section 57 (a) and set aside the same and consequently, declared Ext.P4 order of the Commissioner also as illegal and void. The Deputy Commissioner, MDB, Kozhikode was directed to consider O.A. No. 18/2007 afresh and to dispose the same on merits after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce fresh evidence, if any.

3. About 7 years after the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and while the matter was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner issued Ext.P9 order dated 21.1.2020 in exercise of powers under section 19(1) of the MHR & CE Act withdrawing to his file the proceedings in O.A. No. 18/2007 pending before the Deputy Commissioner and re-numbering it as O.A. No. 1 of 2020. Exhibit P9 order of the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 20997/2020 contending that the same has been issued in violation of Ext. P5 judgment of the Sub Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P10 judgment dated 7.1.2021 directing the Commissioner to dispose of the objections of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 objection before the Commissioner contending that Ext.P9 order has been passed in violation of the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment of the Sub Court. The Commissioner, by Ext.P12 order dated 24.2.2021 dismissed Ext.P11 objection of the petitioner holding that he has the authority to transfer the proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition is filed with prayer to quash Ext.P12 as it is passed in violat