The main legal point established in the judgment is that a show cause notice lacking jurisdiction and being arbitrary can be set aside by the court.

PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.

The writ appeal is preferred against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 112. 2008 made in W.P.No.30115 of 2008.

2. The appellant/petitioner was declared as the hereditary trustee of Sri Ananthapadmanabhaswami Temple, Gandhinagar, Madras, by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras-34, in O.A.No.101 of 1963 dated 23. 1964 in an application filed under Section 63(b) of the Madras Act 22 of 1959. The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the notice seeking to review the order dated 23. 1964 and the so-called notice of suo motu revision issued by the Commissioner, HR & CE. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned notice is issued either without jurisdiction or contrary to the provisions of the Act, and therefore, this writ appeal has been filed.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that it was precisely their case that a suo motu revision is not sustainable either on law or on facts and the invocation of the power of suo motu revision after 44 years cannot be sustained, and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that when the show cause notice itself is arbitrary on the face of it, it is not necessary for the appellant to respond to it. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it strictly cannot be called a show cause notice because the impugned notice clearly shows that the Commissioner had decided that the appellant Sabha cannot claim to be the hereditary trustee and therefore, the notice calling upon the appellant to be present for an enquiry was an empty formality since the matter had been prejudged. The learned Senior Counsel has produced all that led to the filing of petition under Section 63(b) by which the appellant was declared as the hereditary trustee. It is also their case that it is not as if that the respondent had issued notice on their own. But, it was instigated by persons, who are inimically disposed of towards the persons, right now in administration of the Sabha.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the show cause notice was issued under Section 69(2) of the Act and Section 69(2) clearly shows that this power of suo motu revision can be exercised at any time, and therefore, the lapse of 44 years will not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the notice. Learned Special Government Pleader also referred to the decision reported in 2004 (3) CTC 536 (Commissioner, HR & CE. (Admn.) v. Vedantha Sthapna Sabha, which was ostensibly the reason for the invocation of the suo motu power of the revision.

5. Normally interference at the show cause notice stage is not done. But the grievance in this case is that the issue is already prejudged and the notice lacks jurisdiction. In 1996 1 SCC 327, it has been held that it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice to warrant interference at that stage.

6. The documents relating to the formation of the Adyar Temple Society, and the application to declare itself as the hereditary trustee have been enclosed in the typed set of papers and they are as follows:-

The first General Body Meeting relating to the Adyar Temple Society was held on 112. 1956 and the body known as The Adyar Hindu Religious Society was formed. There are documents to show that the residents of the two colonies of Gandhinagar and Kasturbanagar expressing their desire to have a place of worship had approached His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore to allot a convenient place near the Bus Stand for constructing a temple. An area covering 6.8 grounds was bid for the temple and it is thereupon on 112. 1956, the Adyar Hindu Religious Society was formed. It was registered on 312. 1956 with the help of contribution from donors, a temple was constructed. The objects of th