Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.Saravanan, J
S.Mahalingam – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Trust (HR&CE) – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.16487 of 2025|W.M.P(MD)No.12530 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.S.Madhavan, Mr.S.Manohar, Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
The court reinforced the necessity of natural justice in adjudicative proceedings, ruling that effective notice is essential for fair hearings.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 63(b) and 69 - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioners challenged the order allowing the hereditary rights of a third respondent over a temple, claiming violation of natural justice due to lack of notice. - The court found that the petitioners’ submissions were not adequately considered as they were not present during hearings. (Paras 3, 4, 9, 10)
(B) Natural Justice - It is imperative that all parties involved in adjudication receive effective notice to ensure fair hearing. Denial of such notice results in the order being quashed. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arises from the attempt by the third respondent to assert control over the temple, leading to prior dismissals of the petitioners' appeals and subsequent claims of hereditary rights. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed due to inadequate representation of the petitioners, with a direction for a new decision to be made within three months. (Paras 10)
Issues: Whether the petitioners were adequately notified before the decision on the hereditary rights. (Paras 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, indicating that all parties must be given an opportunity to present their case. (Paras 10)
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenged order on grounds of lack of notice. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding violation of natural justice. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. respondents argued principles of natural justice were adhered to. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court observed lack of proper representation led to quash. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent in O.A.No.7 of 2023 dated 28.03.2025.
2. At the outset, the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent stands recorded that pursuant to the impugned order that the control of the subject temple, namely Arulmighu Kattu Karupannaswamy Temple, was handed over to the third respondent on 11.05.2025.
3. It appears that there is an internal power struggle between the members of 2 different communities to control the aforesaid temple. The petitioners herein had earlier filed O.A.No.19 of 2015 under Section 64 (1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the Joint Commissioner for framing a scheme. The petitioners belong to different community from that of the third respondent, who claims a hereditary right over the aforesaid temple. After O.A.No.19 of 2015 was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner on 21.04.2017, the petitioners filed an appeal in Appeal No.26 of 2017 under Section 69 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 , which was dismissed on 10.01.2019. No further steps have been taken barring an application in I.A.No.58 of 2020 before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam for seeking leave to file a suit against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner dismissing the Appeal No.26 of 2017 on 10.01.2019. It appears that the said application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 09.01.2022. It is informed that no steps have been taken by the petitioners to restore the application. In the said proceeding, it appears that the third respondent was also a party wherein the stand of the third respondent was that the temple is a denominational temple under the control of the dominant community namely, Pillaimars. However, it is the submission of the petitioners that in O.A.No.7 of 2023 filed by the third respondent under Section 63 (B) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the third respondent has claimed hereditary rights over the aforesaid temple, which stands now allowed by the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners have an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order on the ground that there is a manifest violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no effective notice was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. In this connection, reference is made to Paragraph No.22 of the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner, wherein it has been stated as follows:
“22....,t;tof;fpy; kDjhuh; jug;G thJiuf;fhf
05.03.2025y; tug;ngw;wjpy;> vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; M[uhfhjjhy;> 12.03.2025f;F ,t;tof;F xj;jp itf;fg;gl;L 12.03.2025y; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; thJiu nra;agg; l;l epiyapy;> vjph;kDjhuh; jugG; thJiuf;fhf 12.03.2025> 19.03.2025 kw;Wk; 26.03.2025 Mfpa Njjpfspy; chpa tha;gG; fs; toq;fg;gLk; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; kw;Wk; mtuJ tof;fwpQh;fs; M[uhftpy;iy. vOj;Jg;g+h;tkhd thJiu VJk; rkh;g;gpf;ftpy;iy. ,t;tof;F khz;gik nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy;> W.P(MD)No.8481/2023, 13.04.2023y; gpwg;gpj;j cj;jutpd; mbg;gilapy; fhyf;nfL eph;zak; nra;j tof;F vd;gjhy; 26.03.2025y; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; thJiu Kbf;fg;gl;L cj;juTf;fhf xj;jp itf;fg;gl;lJ.”
5. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent was examined as P.W.1 as early as on 21.12.2023 and thereafter case was listed for cross examination on two different dates in the years 2023 and 2024, upto June 2024. The Fit person was also examined on 17.10.2024 as a Court witness. It is fur
