O R D E R

Heard Ms. E.Gayathri, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. R.Gopalan, Learned Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Third Respondent by Proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 2231/2017/A2 dated 14.03.2018 removed the Petitioner, who was employed in its Temple, from service under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the HR & CE Act' for short), which was challenged by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9575 of 2018 filed on 11.04.2018 before this Court. However, this Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition taking note of the availability of the alternative remedy to prefer appeal against that order in Section 56(2) of the HR & CE Act and disposed that Writ Petition by order dated 08.07.2019

holding as follows:-

“7. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy, as indicated in the impugned order. It is open to the petitioner to raise all objections as he deems fit before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order.

8. The petitioner is directed to pursue his appeal remedy before the respondent or any other competent authority and submit an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such appeal being filed, the respondent/the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter.”

3. According to the Petitioner, he had preferred such appeal on 30.09.2019 before the First Respondent, but it was returned on 03.10.2019 stating, inter alia, that the appeal lies to the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent by

Order in Rc. No. 971/2020/B1 dated 10.12.2020 declined to entertain the appeal as time barred referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesan -vs- Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [(2019) 7 SCC 108], which is assailed in this

Writ Petition.

4. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal against the said order under Section 56(2) of the HR & CE Act before the Second Respondent within one month from the date of receipt of its copy. It has been held 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 appeal before the Statutory Authorities and Tribunals provided in a special or local law. In the present case, though it cannot be said that the Petitioner has presented the appeal under Section 56(2) of the HR & CE Act before the Second Respondent within the prescribed time limit of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the Proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 2231/2017/A2 dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Third Respondent, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in the interregnum, he had been pursuing the matter by way of Writ Petition in W.P. No. 9575 of

2018 filed in this Court and before the First Respondent.

5. The question arises as to whether the said period from the date of filing of the said Writ Petition till the appeal was actually presented to the Second Respondent could be excluded for the purpose of reckoning limitation in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the relevant portions of which reads as follows:-

14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.—

....

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been