ORDER :

Prayers:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue Writs of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 09.04.2013 in A.P. Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 2011 of the First Respondent and the notice dated 19.01.2011 of the Second Respondent, and quash the same.

Heard Mrs. AL.Ganthimathi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Learned Special Government Pleader for the First Respondent and Mr. S.Sithirai Anandan, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are tenants in respect of the property of the Second Respondent, who had by proceedings dated 19.01.2011 determined the fair rent for the period from 01.11.2001 to 30.12.2010 for the respective portions occupied by them, under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), which has been confirmed by order dated 09.04.2013 in appeal in A.P. Nos. 25 to 29 of 2011 by the First Respondent and has been impeached in these Writ Petitions.

3. The primordial contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that though Section 34-A of the Act does not expressly contemplate any prior notice to the tenants before determining the fair rent for the premises occupied by them, the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari and Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple -vs- State of Tamil Nadu [2009 (3) LW 729] has explained the procedure to be followed in that regard as extracted below :-

"14. PLEA REGARDING NATURAL JUSTICE: The provision as it stands affords no opportunity to the lessee before the rent is fixed. It is at the time of the appeal that hearing is provided. In Chemplast Sanmar Limited -vs- The Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu (2008 (4) CTC 793), the Division Bench held,

"................ In any event, as stated by Sir William Wade, when natural justice was violated at the first stage, it cannot be held that a fair appeal can cure such an unfair trial. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V. L.K.Ratna, AIR 1987 SC 71, assumes greater significance inasmuch as an Appeal cannot be an overall substitute in respect of the breach of fundamental procedure committed in the original proceedings. To strengthen the above principle, an English decision reported in Leary V. National Union of Vehicle Builders, 1971 Chncellory 34 can be aptly quoted, wherein Megarry, J, has held that, as a general rule, a failure of natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in the appellate body. "

Applying the above well established principles to the case on hand, the violation of principles of natural justice which had occurred at the level of the original authority cannot be said to have been cured at the level of the Appellate Authority. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the order of the first respondent cannot be said to have set right the violation committed at the level of the original authority. Since the petitioner is entitled to substantiate its stand that the consent obtained by it in the order dated 5.5.2006/16.11.1998 was passed on the real claim that the existing power plant operated by diesel is going to be operated in future by the usage of coal and that the same cannot be construed as a new power plant, in all fairness, the first respondent after reaching the conclusion that the Pollution Control Board breached the principles of natural justice ought to have set aside the order dated 22.1.2008 and remitted the matter back to the Pollution Control Board for fresh hearing...................... "

15. The grievance regarding lack of opportunity must be accepted. We agree with the view expressed in Chemplast Sanmar Limited -vs- The