Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 822
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Rajan - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.No. 10142 of 2023 & W.M.P.No. 10166 of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2023
For the Petitioner:A.R. Nixon, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (For HR & CE).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between personal notings made by the Presiding Officer and public documents, emphasizing the need for maintaining decorum during proceedings and the power of the Presiding Officer to initiate appropriate actions.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Entitlement for Certified Copy - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 78 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 78 of the HR and CE Act - Procedures for conducting enquiry and passing final orders - Misbehaviour during examination or adjudication - Powers of the Presiding Officer - Installation of CCTV Cameras for conducting proceedings - Decision based on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ of Declaration to obtain a certified copy of the adjudication dated 28.02.2023, which was not being furnished by the 2nd respondent, the HR & CE Department. The petitioner contended that the notings made in the adjudication were not communicated to them, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to seek the certified copy of the notings made by the Presiding Officer in the files, as they were considered personal notings for the understanding of the case by the Presiding Officer. The court also emphasized the need for maintaining decorum during proceedings and directed the Joint Commissioner to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders within three months.
Issues: Entitlement for certified copy of adjudication notings, misbehaviour during examination, delay in concluding proceedings, and installation of CCTV cameras for conducting proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notings made by the Presiding Officer were not public documents and the petitioner was not entitled to seek the certified copy of the same. The court also emphasized the need for maintaining decorum during proceedings and directed the Joint Commissioner to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders within three months.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the Joint Commissioner to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders within three months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for certified copy of the adjudication dated 28.02.2023 and direct the 2nd respondent to furnish the adjudication dated 28.02.2023.)
The Writ of Declaration has been instituted to declare that the petitioner is entitled for certified copy of the adjudication dated 28.02.2023 and to direct the 2nd respondent to furnish the adjudication dated 28.02.2023.
2. Admittedly, the respondent / Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (hereinafter referred to as ''HR & CE Department'') initiated Eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''HR & CE Act'') against 25 respondents in M.P.No.134/2018 dated 20.12.2018.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Adjudicating Authority has recorded some notings in the file and such notings made in the adjudication has not been communicated to the writ petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.
4. The writ petitioner submitted an application for the certified copy of the notings and the said application was also not considered by the competent authorities.
5. It is not in dispute that the enquiry is in progress and the examination of witnesses are going on. The evidence of the petitioner''s side was completed and the examination of other witnesses are in progress. While so, the petitioner apprehends that the notings made by the Adjudicating Authority is against his interest and therefore, it is to be furnished to him based on the application submitted.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Adjudicating Authority filed a memo on 03.03.2023, asking the competent authority to furnish the certified copy of the notings. The memo had not been entertained or received by the adjudicating Court and therefore, the petitioner has no other option, except filing the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department has recorded adverse remarks against the witness in her notes paper, which has not been disclosed to any person. The notes paper is a public record. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a copy of the said notings made by the Joint Commissioner.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents / HR & CE Department objected the said contention by stating that notings were made by the Presiding Officers with reference to the facts, opinions or otherwise formed at the time of hearing and such notings cannot form part and parcel of record. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek certified copy of such notings made by the Presiding Officer at the time of hearing of the case. The statement of the witnesses recorded alone is to be furnished and that has already been furnished to the petitioner, which was acknowledged. In respect of notings made by the Presiding Officer in the file, it is for the personal understanding of the Presiding Officer concerned and to form an opinion with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the very claim made by the petitioner is untenable.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents / HR & CE Department relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, reported in ILR (2010) II Delhi 1 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“62. The apprehension of the learned Attorney General that unless a restrictive meaning is given to Section 2 (j), the notes or jottings by the Judges or their draft judgments would fall within the purview of the Information Act is misplaced. Notes taken by the Judges while hearing a case cannot be treated as final views
