Exercise of jurisdiction after 10 years held justified on facts.

K.A.Swami, CJ.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 8. 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 14364 of 1993. The petitioner/ appellant sought for quashing the order dated 11. 1992 bearing S.M.R.1/92 passed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, on the ground that the Commissioner has passed the aforesaid order in exercise of his suo motu powers after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned single Judge has rejected the contention of the petitioner that the exercise of suo motu power by the Commissioner is arbitrary and he should not have exercised it after a lapse of 10 years. Learned single Judge has held that there is no time limit prescribed by Sec.69(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and as such, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under Sec.69(2) of the Act. It has also been pointed out by the learned single Judge that the matter has now been remanded without any condition, and the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to render a fresh finding as to whether the petitioner can be recognised as a hereditary trustee, no harm or prejudice can be held to have been caused to the petitioner/ appellant by reason of the order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

2. It is contended before us that the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 9. 1983 on taking into consideration several documents and the oral evidence adduced in the case and recognised the petitioner/ appellant as the hereditary trustee of the Temple in question, that no person aggrieved by the order of the Deputy commissioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 9. 1982, that after a lapse of 9 years, the Commissioner has chosen to exercise power of Revision suo motu under Sec.69(2) of the Act and has passed an order on 11. 1993, that it is not permissible for the Commissioner to exercise the power of revision suo motu after a lapse of 10 years. In support of the last contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India, (1976)37 S.T.C. 425.

3. The suo motu proceedings were started by the Commissioner on 13. 1992. He issued a notice to the petitioner/ appellant and afforded him an opportunity and considered all the contentions urged before him. In the course of the order dated 11. 1993, the Commissioner has pointed out the deficiencies in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The grounds stated by the Commissioner for exercising the suo motu power in his order are as follows:

“(i) The 7th respondent herein was never holding office as hereditary trustee within the meaning of Sec.6(ii) of the Act.

(ii) The 7th respondent herein was only a servant of the temple and was also writing accounts and his father Ayyam perumal was never trustee in the institution in question.

(iii) The 7th respondent herein did not file the agreement dated 12. 1921 between the then trustees of the temple in the year with that of the poojari of the temple. That the document dated 12. 1921 filed in this case clearly indicates that in the year 1921, the 7th respondent’s family was not in management as trustees in the temple much less as hereditary trustees so as to attract Secs.6(2) and 63(b) of the Act.

.(iv) The Deputy Commissioner without properly analysing Exs.A-1 to A-16 had erroneously granted the declaration. The petitioner/ 7th respondent herein has not established the management of his family for the last 3 generations in an unbroken line of succession from father to son.

.(v) The Deputy Commissioner has failed to see that the budget sanction orders produced as exhibits in this case no doubt related to the temple sincc the 7th respondent has come into possess