1974 Supreme(Mad) 198
M.M.ISMAIL
S Ramamurthi – Appellant
Versus
V. Rangachari and others – Respondent
Advocates:
M. A. Sadanand for M. Kalyanasundaram, for Petitioners in W.P. No. 2035 of 1971.
K. E. Srinivasan for K. E. Rajagopalachari for Petitioner in W.P. No 2860 of 1972 and 1672 of 1973.
M. Srinivasan, for K. E. Rajagopalachari, for Petitioners in W.P. No. 189 of 1973.
T. L. Ram Mohan, for K. E. Rajagopalachari, for Respondents 1 to 5 in W.P. 2055 of 1971.
W. C. Thiruvengadom, for Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No 2860 of 1972
R. Sundaralingam, for Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No 189 of 1973.
S. Y. Raghuraman, for M. Subramania Rao, for Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 1672 of 1973. and of S. Ramalingam, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents 6 and 7 in W.P. No 2035 of 1971.
Order.- Though these writ petitions differ with regard to the facts, they are being disposed of together, by a common order, in view of one common point argued in all these writ petitions. In all the;e writ petitions, against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, pasted under the provisions of Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, appeals were preferred to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under section 69 (1) of the Act and the Commissioner by the impugned orders in the writ petitions remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Deputy Commissioner. The orders of the Commissioner are challenged in these writ petitions and the common point raised in these petitions is that the Commissioner has not power to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.
2. For the purpose of considering this point, the first thing to be noticed is the language in which the power of the appellate authority is couched. Section 69 (1) of the Act states: “Any person aggrieved, by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner unde
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
