Power of Commissioner for according sanction cannot be delegated.

Mohan, J.

1. These writ appeals raise an important question as to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to the issue of Mandamus. The brief facts, which are necessary, are set out below:

2. The parties are referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in these writ appeals. The second respondent Aadheenakarthar owns large extent of land in the State of Tamil Nadu scattered over various districts and one such property which forms the subject matter of these writ appeals is survey No. 234/3 and 234/4 (old survey Nos.53 and paimash Nos.307, 308 and 311 to 316). It comprises an extent of 4 acres and 5 cents of wet lands in Adambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chelgalpattu District. On 27-8-1969, the second respondent entered into an agreement for sale of this land with one M.S. Sabapathy. Under the terms of the agreement the consideration was fixed at Rs. 180 per cent. On this agreement, an application was made to the appellant herein for sanction under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant directed the Assistant Commissioner, Kancheepuram, to hold an enquiry and submit his report on the necessity for the sale and market value of the property. By his report dated 11-12-1972 the Assistant Commissioner found that there was necessity for the sale and sanction might be accorded to the second respondent. However, it was stated by him that the price would be somewhere in the region of Rs. 400 percent. In the event of the intending vendor proposing to offer that consideration of Rs. 400 per cent, necessary permission might be accorded. The agreement holder viz., M.S. Sabapathy was not interested in purchasing the property at Rs. 400 per cent and insisted on the sale of the property at Rs. 180 per cent to him. Since the parties could not come to an amicable settlement and as the said M.S. Sabapathy was not willing to purchase the property at Rs. 400 per cent he asked for the return of the advance paid by him. He also claimed damages as against the second respondent. For the recovery of the advance paid by M.S. Sabapathy and also damages and interest, he filed O.S. No. 129 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu against the second respondent. The advance claimed was Rs. 20,000 and damages of Rs. 10,000 with interest. In all the suit was laid for the recovery of Rs. 35,562.50. The said suit, on trial came to be decreed on 28-11-1975. Under the terms of the decree, the plaintiff therein was held to be entitled to the refund or the advance of Rs. 20,000, while the damages came to be fixed at Rs. 5,000, in all a decree for Rs. 25,000 together with interest at 6% per annum was passed. The plaintiff was also awarded proportionate costs of the suit.

3. The second respondent, who figured as defendant in the suit, preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 439 of 1976 to this Court. This Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court for refund and interest, but the quantum of damages was reduced to Rs. 3,562.50 by judgment dated 6-3-1981.

4. Pending the said appeal, stay of execution of the decree was granted and later the interim stay was modified in respect of the return of the advance of Rs. 20,000, interest and proportionate costs and ultimately the stay was restricted only to Rs. 5,000.

5. A mortgage had been created over the property for a sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of one P.G. Sekhar, son of Pattabirama Mudaliar. The second respondent entered into an agreement to sell the property with the first respondent on 12-5-1978. The agreement stipulated that the sale price will be Rs. 300 per cent. In pursuance of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid in order to enable the second respondent (1) to discharge the decree debt in O.S. No. 129 of 1972 and (2) the mortgage in favour of P.G. Sekhar. Pursuant to this agreement, possession was also handed over to the first respondent. The fir