Madras High Court
Meenabharathi vs The Executive Officer on 22 November, 2021
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.16559 to 16564, 16554 to 16557, 16672, 16673,
16675, 16678, 16698, 16700, 16679, 16690, 16691, 16701, 16695,
16680, 16686, 16687,16676, 16682, 16683, 16674, 16677, 16681,
16702, 16685, 16684, 16689, 16688, 16703, 16692, 16693, 16696,
16697, 16704, 16699,16705, 16706, 16708 and 16709 of 2021
W.P(MD).No.19849 of 2021
Meenabharathi ... Petitioner
-Vs.-
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Puttu Urchava Vagaiyara
Kattalai,
Arulmighu Sokkanathar Thirukovil,
Puttuthoppu, Madurai-625 016. .. Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
of the impugned orders of the respondent dated 26.07.2021, 20.09.2021
and 07.10.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
the respondent to re-fix the fair rent in accordance with the law and to
pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the
above facts and circumstances.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan (in all W.Ps)
For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan (in all W.Ps)
******
COMMON ORDER
This common order will govern the captioned thirty seven main
writ petitions and the captioned writ miscellaneous petitoins (W.M.Ps)
therein.
2. Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in all the
thirty seven main writ petitions and Mr.M.Saravanan, learned private
counsel who accepts notice on behalf of the lone respondent in all the
thirty seven captioned main writ petitions are before me.
3. To be noted, the lone respondent in all the captioned matters is
'Executive Officer' of a Temple under 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of
1959)' [hereafter 'TNHR&CE Act' for the sake of convenience and
clarity].
4. Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in previous listing on 08.11.2021 which reads as
follows:
'Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel fairly submits that in
similar matters i.e. W.P. (MD).Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021,
another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the
Writ Petitions vide order dated 01.11.2021 (this Court is
informed that there were minor changes in the order on
02.11.2021 when the matter was listed under the caption 'For
Being Mentioned') relegating the writ petitioners to alternative
remedy
2. Learned counsel requests for a short accommodation
to produce a copy of the order. Request acceded to.
3. List under the caption 'Adjourned Admission' on
22.11.2021.'
5. Today, copy of the order made by Hon'ble Predecessor Judge
being order dated 01.11.2021 (this Court is informed that this copy is
post incorporation of minor changes made on 02.11.2021 at the instance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
of oral mentioning by learned counsel on both sides) has been placed
before me. To be noted, the same set of two counsel were before Hon'ble
Predecessor Judge also. Both learned counsel submit that there is no
disputation or disagreement that the captioned thirty seven main writ
petitions are akin to the writ petitions disposed of by this earlier order
made by Hon'ble Predecessor Judge (in ten writ petitions i.e.,
W.P(MD).Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021). Therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel on both sides, captioned thirty seven main writ petitions
are taken up.
6. Before I proceed further, I deem it appropriate to make the
following clear:
(a) In the captioned thirty seven writ petitions, three
different sets of communications are assailed. One set is
dated 26.07.2021 (Page No.40 of typed set of papers)
second set is dated 20.09.2021 (Page No.50 of typed set of
papers) and third set is dated 07.10.2021 (Page No.62 of
typed set of papers).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
(b) This Court is informed that captioned writ
petitions have been filed in this Court within thirty days
from the date of receipt of the aforementioned
communications by the respective writ petitioners and/or
thirty days have not elapsed.
(c) This order, therefore will not serve as a precedent
for extension of time statutorily prescribed.
(d) This order is being made as Hon'ble Predecessor
Judge has already made the aforementioned order in ten
writ petitions with regard to ten other similarly placed writ
petitioners qua the same temple / same issue which means
departure from that view may result in placing similarly
placed litigants in dissimilar situations qua court orders.
(e). To be noted, regarding extension of statutorily
prescribed time period, I have already taken a different view
following Rukmani Ganesan case [Ganesan, represented
by its power agent G.Rukmani Ganesan v. Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Board and others], decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
reported in (2019) 7 SCC 108, but as I am not making a
departure I refrain from making a reference in this case
(preserving such a course for a case if it becomes
imperative in days to come) in the light of the
aforementioned points. Therefore, it has been made clear
that this order will not serve as a precedent for extension of
statutorily prescribed time frame, more particularly, under
TNHR&CE Act.
7. The aforementioned 01.11.2021 order of Hon'ble Predecessor
Judge reads as follows:
'In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioner
assails an order of refixation of fair rent with effect from
01.07.2016. Consequential orders for initiation of proceedings
under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the Act of 1959) are
also under challenge.
2. The respective petitioner assails the order of
refixation of fair rent primarily on the ground that such fair
rent has been refixed with retrospective effect. By relying upon
an order passed in N.Gurusamy Nadar and Others v. The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167, it is contended that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
the Court categorically held that fixation of fair rent with
retrospective effect is impermissible in law. Therefore, the
respective petitioner contends that the impugned order of
refixation of fair rent is unsustainable. Although an appellate
remedy is provided for under Section 34A(3) of the Act of
1959, it is submitted that these writ petitions are maintainable
in view of the failure of the respondent to take into account the
above mentioned order. The respective petitioner also
contends that great prejudice would be caused if these writ
petitions are not entertained inasmuch as the proviso to
Section 34A(5) mandates that the refixed rent should be paid
and satisfactory proof thereof submitted before an appeal is
entertained.
3. On the contrary, the respondent submits that the
constitutional validity of Section 34A of the Act of 1959,
including in particular, the proviso to Section 34A(5) was
upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami
Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners Association v. The State
of Tamil Nadu, 2009-3-L.W.728. Therefore, it is submitted that
the present writ petitions are not maintainable.
4. Upon considering the rival contentions, it should be
noted that a statutory remedy is provided for. In addition,
there are disputed questions of fact as to whether the delay in
fixation of fair rent is attributable to the respective petitioner
as contended by the respondent. In these circumstances, the
respective petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
under Article 226 of the Constitution and should avail of the
statutory remedy. At the same time, the contention of the
respective petitioner that the order of this Court, which was
reported in 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167, has not been taken into
consideration by the respondent is a contention that warrants
consideration. Therefore, the appellate authority shall take the
same into account while disposing of the appeals. In addition,
it is just and necessary that the appeals be disposed of
expeditiously.
5. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of
by permitting the respective petitioner to present an appeal
before the Commissioner in terms of Section 34A(3) of the Act
of 1959. The respective petitioner is permitted to present such
appeals within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. If such appeals are presented within the said time
limit, the Commissioner is directed to receive such appeals
and dispose of the same on merits within a period of two
months from the date of receipt thereof without going into the
question of limitation. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.P(MD).Nos.16300 to 16305,
16307, 16308, 16309, 16310 of 2021 are closed.'
8. In the light of the above, there being no disputation or
disagreement between the parties that the captioned writ petitions are
akin to the ten writ petitions in which aforementioned order has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
made, captioned writ petitions will also stand disposed of on the same
lines. For convenience, I reproduce the operative portion, namely
paragraph 5 (though the entire order has been reproduced supra) and the
same is as follows:
'5. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the
respective petitioner to present an appeal before the Commissioner in terms of
Section 34A(3) of the Act of 1959. The respective petitioner is permitted to
present such appeals within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. If such appeals are presented within the said time limit, the
Commissioner is directed to receive such appeals and dispose of the same on
merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof without
going into the question of limitation. There will be no order as to costs...'
Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous writ petitions are
disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
22.11.2021
Speaking order
Index: Yes
Internet : Yes
pkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
PS: After the order was dictated, learned counsel for writ petitioners
request for return of the original of the impugned order in all the
captioned matters for the purpose of enabling him to file/present a
statutory appeals before the appellate authority, namely Commissioner-
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai (previously Nungambakkam High Road),
Chennai-600 034. Registry to return the impugned orders in all the
captioned matter forthwith to the counsel on record for the writ
petitioners under due acknowledgment. It is also made clear that the
aforementioned order made by Hon'ble Predecessor Judge has been
given quietus by the parties i.e., there are no intra-court appeals.
To
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Puttu Urchava Vagaiyara
Kattalai,
Arulmighu Sokkanathar Thirukovil,
Puttuthoppu, Madurai-625 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
M.SUNDAR.J.,
pkn
W.P(MD).Nos.19849 to 19858 and 19986 to 20012 of 2021
22.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
