IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 15.11.2006

Coram:-

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN

W.A. Nos.2326 and 2327 of 2001

and

W.A.M.P.Nos.18092 and 18093 of 2001

1. S.Balakrishnan

2. S.P.Amirthalingam

3. S.Balasubramanian .. Appellants in W.A.2326/2001

01. V.Loganathan

02. Prakasam

03. S.Nataraja Pathar

04. K.Sekar

05. R.Anandhan

06. D.Mahalingam

07. R.Ramalingam

08. G.Ganesan

09. D.Thangamani

10. Gurusamy Pathar

11. C.Shanmugam

12. V.Ramaiyya Pathar

13. V.Ramalingam

14. V.Ganesan

15. K.Thiagarajan

16. K.Thennarasu

17. K.Natarajan

18. M.Selvaraj

19. G.Sekar

20. K.Rajendran

21. AR.Renganathan

22. V.Mahalingam . . Appellants in W.A.2327/2001

-vs-

1.The Secretary to Government,

Tamil Culture and Religious Endowment Dept.,

Chennai - 9.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Commissioner,

HR & CE Admn.,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai 34.

3.The Joint Commissioner,

HR & CE Department,

Mailaduthurai,

Nagapattinam District.

4.The Executive Officer,

A/m Saranarayanaperumal Temple

Kumbakonam .. Respondents in both W.As.

Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against th

order made in W.P.Nos. 13942 and 13943 of 2001, dated 05.09.2001.

WP 13942 AND 13943/2001:

pray this Court may be pleased to call for the records made i

MP Nos. 2 of 1991, dt. 12.2.1992 on the file of the third respondent

confirmed in A.P.No. 28/99.D2, and A.P.No. 29/99-D2, respectively dt

29.5.2000 on the file on the Second respondent, confirmed in Govt

Letter (nilai) Nos. 126 and 125, dt. 22.6.2001 on the file of th

first respondent respectively.

For Appellants : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran,

Spl.G.P. (for R1 to R3)

Mr.D.Rajendran (for R4)

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)

These writ appeals are filed against the common order of th

learned single Judge dated 05.09.2001 made in W.P.Nos.13942 and 1394

of 2001, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding that th

petitioners have not made out a ground to interfere with the order o

the Government, dismissed both the writ petitions.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as th

respondents.

3. In view of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of th

view that it is unnecessary to traverse all the factual details a

stated by both the parties.

4. The petitioners/appellants aggrieved by the order in A.P.No.2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of 1992 dated 29.05.2000 of the Commissioner, HR & CE, preferred

revision before the Government. Along with the revision, they als

filed a petition to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the sai

revision filed against the order in A.P.No. 29 of 1992 date

29.05.2000. In addition to the same, they have also prayed stay o

operation of the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE. By order date

22.06.2001, the Government, without going into the merits of the clai

made by the petitioners, after finding that the revision filed o

25.12.2000 is beyond the prescribed period of three months unde

Section 114 of the HR & CE Act, rejected the appeal as barred b

limitation. The said order was challenged by way of writ petitions

The learned Judge accepted the stand taken by the Government an

dismissed the writ petitions.

5. The relevant provision which enables the petitioners to file

revision to the Government is Section 114 of the Act. As per Sectio

144(4) of the said Act, the revision application has to be made to th

Government within three months from the date on which the order o

proceeding to which the application relates to was communicated to th

applicant. In the case before us, there is no dispute that th

revision filed before the Government was not within three months a

provided under Section 144(4) of the Act. We have already referred t