Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, S. SRIMATHY, JJ.
A. Palanichamy & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.A(MD)No. 844 of 2022
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Dispute over temple administration - Sections 63(a), 63(b), 64(1) - The court held that an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction by a statutory authority can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that judicial review is permissible wherever a quasi-judicial authority passes an order affecting the civil rights of parties. The court also highlighted the distinction between the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, citing relevant case law. The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the learned single Judge was set aside, directing the second respondent to consider the application filed by the appellants on merits and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, belonging to a particular community, were in a dispute with another community over the administration of Arulmigu Sri Kaliamman Temple. They filed a petition with three different prayers under Sections 63(a), 63(b), and 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, seeking various declarations and a scheme for temple administration. The Joint Commissioner returned the petition, leading to the filing of a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction by a statutory authority can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the permissibility of judicial review wherever a quasi-judicial authority passes an order affecting the civil rights of parties. The court also highlighted the distinction between the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, citing relevant case law.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of the Joint Commissioner to consider the appellants' petition on merits and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge on the ground of maintainability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction by a statutory authority can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the permissibility of judicial review wherever a quasi-judicial authority passes an order affecting the civil rights of parties. The court also highlighted the distinction between the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, citing relevant case law.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the learned single Judge was set aside, directing the second respondent to consider the application filed by the appellants on merits and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the parties.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 30/06/2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13660 of 2022.)
S.S. Sundar, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.06.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.13660 of 2022 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
2. Heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing and disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:
(i) The appellants belong to a particular community residing in Kumarapuram village. It appears that there is a dispute between two communities of the village in relation to administration of the temple by name Arulmigu Sri Kaliamman Temple.
(ii) It is the case of the appellants that the temple is under the administration of the representatives belonging to both communities living in the village. However, the other community is not in agreement with the appellants. Hence, the appellants have filed a petition with three different prayers before the Joint Commissioner under Section 63(a), 63(b) and 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The first prayer is to declare the temple as a religious institution. The second prayer is to declare that the representatives of two communities in the village are entitled for administration of the temple. The third prayer is to frame a Scheme for administration of the temple. From the averments in the application filed by the appellants, this Court is unable to find any inconsistency in the prayers. After the petition was presented before the Joint Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner returned the petition initially on the ground that three different reliefs cannot be made in one petition. The appellants represented the same by stating that no format is prescribed for filing a petition and that as per Rule 4 of Application and Appeal Rules, reliefs can be claimed in one petition if application contained the grounds on which the reliefs are sought for. However, the Joint Commissioner once again returned the petition with following endorsement:
“TAMIL”
(iii) Challenging the return, the appellants filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13660 of 2022. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants/writ petitioners being aggrieved by orders of return, has to file a revision petition and the writ petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the writ petition, the above writ appeal is filed.
5. This Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned single Judge for the reason that an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction by a statutory authority can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even though the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is wider. It is noted that Rules does not prohibit filing an application under Sections 63(a), 63(b) and 64 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, simultaneously in a single petition when the cause of action is same.
6. It cannot be disputed that the judicial review is permissible wherever quasi judicial authority passes an order affecting the civil rights of parties. Though the order returning the application is an irregularity and this Court can also entertain a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the order returning the application is one just patently illegal and is not warranted. The claim that the temple is a public temple is not inconsistent with a plea that the temple is in the administration of representatives of the communities indicating that the office of trusteeship is hered
An order refusing to exercise jurisdiction by a statutory authority can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and judicial review is permissible wherever a ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting the statutory appellate remedy before seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Parties claiming a genuine interest in proceedings that impact their property or legal rights should be granted an opportunity to be heard, notwithstanding procedural delays, to ensure the principles....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a suit to determine the classification of a temple as a 'denomination temple' and the implications of caste discrimination in t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
