Madras High Court
His Holiness Sri-La-Sri Kasivasi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 February, 2021
W.A.No.972 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.972 of 2020
His Holiness Sri-La-Sri Kasivasi
Muthukumaraswamy Thambiran Swamigal,
rep. by Power Holder Srimath Sundaramurthi,
Thambiran Swamigal,
Joint Head of Kasimadam,
Kasimadam,
Thirupanandhal-612 504. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Mayiladithurai.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur.
5.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Tirunelveli.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar of Registration Department,
Boothapandi,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 20.01.2020 made in W.P.No.1920 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Doraisamy
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy
For Respondents : Mrs.Rehna Begum
Government Advocate
(HR&CE)
for respondent Nos.1 to 5
: Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Spl. Government Pleader
for respondent No.6
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The challenge here is to an order dated January 20, 2020 passed
on a writ petition. The subject-matter of the writ petition was an order
dated January 13, 2015 passed by the first respondent herein by which
an old and concluded matter was sought to be re-opened some eight
years later. The appellant-writ petitioner questions the very propriety
of the steps initiated eight years after the matter had been given a
quietus. The Writ Court declined to interfere. Hence the appeal.
2. By an order dated March 30, 2007, the then Special
Commissioner and Commissioner in the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments (Administration) Department of the State Government
found in favour of the writ petitioner herein or the Thirupanandal Sri
Kasi Mutt that the writ petitioner represents. Sufficient reasons were
indicated in the order and land was discovered to be in the name of
Kasi Mutt that were not part of what the State controlled through its
HR&CE Department.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
3. By an order dated January 13, 2015, the Additional Chief
Secretary to the State Government purported to re-open the matter on
rather specious grounds as contained in his order which was
questioned by the writ petitioner in the proceedings under Article 226
of the Constitution. By such order of January 13, 2015, the Additional
Chief Secretary directed an inquiry to be conducted by another
Additional Chief Secretary and directed the writ petitioner herein and
others interested to appear in person or through their authorised
representatives before such other Additional Chief Secretary. For good
measure, the order of January 13, 2015 recorded that in default of
appearance before the other Additional Chief Secretary, the matter
would be disposed of ex parte.
4. It is such notice that the writ petitioner sought to question,
primarily on the ground that no reason was indicated as to why it was
necessary to re-open the issue. The challenge was repelled by the
Writ Court on the ground that the provision permitting a decision to be
revised within the relevant department was not governed by any
period of limitation. At paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and
order of January 20, 2020 the learned Single Bench held that the first
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
respondent to the writ petition had suo motu power to review any
order passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department. The learned
Single Judge also recorded that Section 114(a) of the HR & CE Act,
1959 does not prescribe a period within which such suo motu power
ought to be exercised.
5. On the basis of such reasoning, the writ petitioner's grievance
was disregarded and the order impugned before the learned Single
Bench was left undisturbed.
6. The appellant herein refers to a judgment reported at (2007)
11 SCC 363 (State of Punjab and others v. Bhatinda District
Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited) and places reliance on
paragraphs 17 to 19 and 24 and 25 of the said judgment. The
principle has been recognised at paragraph 18 of the report, to the
effect that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, every
statutory authority should act within a reasonable period of time,
though what is reasonable would vary from case to case. It was also
noted in the report that the question of limitation being a jurisdictional
question, when such an issue arises, a writ petition would lie.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
7. In the instant case, there is no period of limitation prescribed
and, indeed, as Advocate for the relevant department points out, there
is Section 109 to the Act which prohibits the application of Limitation
Act, 1963 "to any suit for possession of immovable property belonging
to any religious institution or for possession of any interest in such
property."
8. It may do well to notice that in the relevant statute that was
considered by the Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk
Producers Union, there was no period of limitation prescribed, but the
Supreme Court observed, nonetheless, that it did not imply that
however delayed the action or the measure taken was, no complaint
on the ground of the limitation could be entertained. At paragraph 19
of the report, the Supreme Court said that the revisional jurisdiction
should ordinarily be exercised within three years. In this case, the
authority was sought to be exercised nearly eight years after the
matter had been decided.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
9. It is possible that a subsequent event triggers off a fresh
inquiry and in course of such inquiry something else is discovered that
had not been noticed earlier. Especially in departmental action, this is
quite possible. However, when it comes to judicial functioning, when
there is no prescribed period of limitation, the Supreme Court has
advised the three-year outer limit to be a good mark to go by. In the
circumstances, the revision could not have been entertained or mooted
beyond three years of the original order of March 30, 2007 being
passed.
10. The respondent authorities say that, in effect, the previous
order has been reviewed as sufficient reasons existed therefor. It is
not necessary to go into the review fashioned since it does not appear
that in this case there was any doubt, so to say, or any reasonable
doubt raised by anyone qua the order of March 30, 2007. It is true
that only a further inquiry was directed to be undertaken but even for
that, there has to be a basis. If a matter has been allowed to remain
for a period of eight years after a decision was rendered by a
government department or any quasi-judicial proceedings, the same
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
cannot be set to naught after a long period and without there being
any specific reason ascribed therefor.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order dated
January 20, 2020 passed in W.P.No.1920 of 2015 is set aside. The
order of January 13, 2015 challenged in the writ petition is quashed.
No inquiry need be commenced.
12. The writ appeal, W.A.No.972 of 2020, is allowed as
aforesaid, but without any order as to costs. The writ petition
succeeds to the extent indicated above. Consequently,
C.M.P.Nos.11831 and 11834 of 2020 are closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
08.02.2021
Index : Yes
bbr
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Mayiladithurai.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur.
5.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Tirunelveli.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar of Registration Department,
Boothapandi,
Kanyakumari District.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.972 of 2020
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.972 of 2020
08.02.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
