Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan for Mr v. Venkata SeshahFor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :05.06.2007 C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.A.No. 590 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 2007Smt. K.M. Kalaiselvi Mohan... Appellant/Petitioner-vs-1.The CommissionerHindu Religious and CharitableEndowment Board,Nungambakkam High RoadChennai 600 034.2.The Joint CommissionerHindu Religious and CharitableEndowment BoardNear R.D.O. OfficeSathuvacheri PostVellore 9.3.The Executive OfficerArulmigu Sri Varadharaja Perumal ThirukoilOld Katpadi, KatpadiVellore District.... Respondents/Respondents`` Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent againstthe order of the learned single Judge dated made in W.P.No.4020of 2007 dated 05.02.2007. Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India toissue a writ of certioarified Mandamus Call for the record inNa.Ka.No.33437/2006/Y3 dt 15.12.2006 passed by the 1st respondent,quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit thepresent Thiruppani Committee headed by the petitioner to completethe renovation work and perform the consecration of the TempleArulmigu Varadharaja Perumal Thirukkoil, Old Katpadi, Katpadi,Vellore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellant :: Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan for Mr. V. Venkata SeshahFor respondents :: Mr. T. Chandrasekaran Spl. Govt., Pleader for R.1 and 2. Mr. M. Sundar for R.3... JUDGMENT( DELIVERED BY P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)The writ appeal is directed against the order of thelearned single Judge dated 05.02.2007 made in W.P.No.4020 of 2007,in and by which the writ petition filed by the appellant wasdisposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Governmentunder Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959 (in short, "the Act"), by filing appealagainst the order of the first respondent, Commissioner, HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai, dated15.12.2006. The first respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Board, has passed the said order, afterconducting enquiry by dissolving the Thiruppani Committee ofArulmighu Sri Varadharaja Perumal Thirukoil, Old Katpadi, VelloreDistrict headed by Mrs. Kalaiselvi Mohan, the appellant herein, byvirtue of his powers under Rule 54 (4) of the Management andPreservation of Properties of Religious Institution Rules ( inshort, "the Rules") framed under Section 116 (2) of the Act.2. As against the said order of the first respondent,Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,passed under Rule 54 (4) of the Rules stated above, the appellanthas filed the writ petition stating that there is no appeal orrevision provided against the impugned order of the firstrespondent. It is, while considering the provisions of the TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959,especially with reference to Section 114, the learned single Judgehas found that the remedy of appeal is available to the petitionerand in view of the said finding, has given a direction as statedabove while disposing the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, forinvoking the appellate power of the Government under Section 114of the Act, it is possible only after filing an applicationbefore the Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act, which imposesa power on the Commissioner to call for the records and passorders, in effect amounting to revision. To substantiate hiscontention he would also rely upon Section 114 (3) of the Act,which states as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "114 (3). No application to the Government forthe exercise of their power under this sectionshall be made in respect of any matter unlessan application had already been made inrespect of the same matter to the Commissionerunder section 21 and had been disposed of byhim."4. On the other hand, Section 114(1) of the Act categoricallyconfers the powers of appeal to the Government by calling for therecords of the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, JointCommissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. Thesaid provision which runs as follows:"Section 114. Power of Government to call forrecords and pass orders.-(1)The Government may call for and examine therecord of, [the Commissioner, (or theAdditional Commissioner) or any Joint orDeputy or Assistant Commissioner] or of anytrustee in respect of any proceeding, notbeing a proceeding, in respect of which asuit or an appeal or application to a Courtor an appeal to the Government is provided bythis Act, to satisfy themselves as to theregularity of such proceeding or thecorrectness, legality or proprity of anydecision or order passed therein and if, inany case, it appears to the Government thatany such decision or order should bemodified, annulled, reversed or remitted forreconsideration, they may pass ordersaccordingly:Provided that the Government shall notpass any order prejudicial to any party unlesshe has had a reasonable opportunity of makinghis representations.(2)The Government may stay the execution of anysuch decision or order, pending the exerciseof their powers under sub-section (1) inrespect thereof.(3) No application to the Government for theexercise of their power under this sectionshall be made in respect of any matter unlessan application had already been made inrespect of the same matter to theCommissioner under section 21 and had beendisposed of by him.(4) Every application to the Government for theexercise of their power under this sectionshall be preferred within three months fromthe date on which the order of proceeding towhich the application relates wascommunicated to the applicant. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. A combined reading of the said provision, viz., Section 114 ofthe Act shows that, it is not, as if, in cases where theCommissioner himself passes an order, once again the matter hasto be referred to him under Section 21 of the Act. Section 114(3) of the Act would be made applicable only in cases where anyother officer other than the Commissioner passes order. In thepresent case, the impugned order itself has been passed by theCommissioner, and therefore, there is no substance in thecontention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant thatapplication has to be moved before the Commissioner under Section21 of the Act, and thereafter, file appeal to the Government underSection 114. In view of the same, we are not inclined tointerfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.However, the appellant is free to file appeal as directed by thelearned single Judge, within a period of four weeks from today.The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.KhSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar To1.The CommissionerHindu Religious and CharitableEndowment Board,Nungambakkam High RoadChennai 600 034.2.The Joint CommissionerHindu Religious and CharitableEndowment BoardNear R.D.O. OfficeSathuvacheri PostVellore 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Executive OfficerArulmigu Sri Varadharaja Perumal ThirukoilOld Katpadi, KatpadiVellore District.+ one cc to Mr. M. Sundar Advocate sr no. 31808+ one cc to the Governemnt Pleader sr no. 31804nsm(co)nm(11.06.07)W.A.No.590 of 2007