O R D E R

Heard Mr. A.N.Ramanathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T.Villavankothai, Learned Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that on his application in O.A. No. 12 of 2006 filed under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the Second Respondent by order dated 14.07.2008 declared Arulmigu Varadharaja Perumal Koil in S.F. No. 366/4 of Bikshantharkoil Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District, to be a Private Temple belonging to the family of the Petitioner and does not come under the purview of the Act. One Ramaraj, who is inimically disposed towards the Petitioner, had filed the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9352 of 2011 for directing the First Respondent to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 21 of the Act against the aforesaid order based on the representation dated 14.05.2011 made by him and the Second Respondent had filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 31.12.2011 supporting the Petitioner and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated

10.01.2013 passed the following order:-

“5. The fact remains that the subject Temple, namely, Arulmigu Varadha Raja Perumal Temple at Pitchaander Kovil, Manachanallur, Trichy District, was already declared as a Private Temple, as per the order dated 14.07.2008, in O.A. No. 12 of 2006, passed by the Third Respondent herein. Such being the position, it is open to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal, as it is specifically stated in the said appeal to the effect that if any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, he can prefer an appeal. Though it is contended that the Petitioner is not a party in the present proceedings, it is open to him to prefer an appeal, as per provision under Section 69(1) of the Act.

6. Accordingly, it is open to the Petitioner to challenge the said order, dated 14.07.2008, in O.A. No. 12 of 2006, passed by the Third Respondent herein, if the Petitioner so desires. It is made clear that in the event of preferring such appeal by the Petitioner, the same may be preferred within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with the condonation of delay petition. The time consumed in respect of pendency of the Writ Petition has to be excluded from commutation of the delay in preferring the appeal. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. In the event of preferring any such appeal with the condonation of delay, the Second Respondent shall not be influenced by any of ther observations made by this Court in the order.”

The said Ramaraj thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 69(1) of the Act before the First Respondent along with an application to condone the delay of 1548 days in filing the same. However, the delay in filing such appeal could not be condoned in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesan -vs- Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [(2019) 7 SCC 108] that the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, is restricted to any suit, appeal or application filed in a 'Court' and cannot be pressed in service with regard to filing of application before the Statutory Authorities and Tribunals provided in a special or local law, though there is no limitation for exercising the powers of suo motu revision under the relevant provisions of the Act by the Commissioner without prejudice to any other remedy open to the aggrieved person in law. In that backdrop, the First Respondent by proceedings in Notice S.M.R. No. 30/2013 (R.C. No. 63125/2011 D4) dated 01.07.2013 sent notice to the Petitioner and the said Ramaraj calling upon them to appear for an enquiry on 16.07.2013 to examine the legality of the order dated 14.07.