Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

K.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11932 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11932 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2022

Madras High Court
K.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 5 July, 2022
                                                                                       W.P.No.29773 of 2011

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 05.07.2022

                                                          CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                                    W.P.No.29773 of 2011

            1.K.Shanmugam
            2.A.Krishnasamy
            3.Meignanam
            4.Velusamy Gounder
            5.C.Natarajan                                                                     ... Petitioners


                                                            .Vs.

            1.The Commissioner
              Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
               (Admn) Department
              Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

            2.Joint Commissioner
              Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
               (Admn) Department, Coimbatore.

            3.P.Muruga Pandaram                                                       ... Respondents


            Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ
            of      Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the
            Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai in R.C.No.55038/2001 D2 dt.3.5.2011, in dismissing the
            condone delay application in filing the appeal and quash the same.


                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam

                                  For Respondents   : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
                                                      Government Advocate (HR & CE)
                                                      for R1 & R 2
                                                            ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29773 of 2011

This writ petition was filed against the order passed by the 1st respondent

dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

2.The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesan .v. The Commissioner, the Tamil

Nadu Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Board & Ors., reported in 2019 7

SCC 108. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held as follows:

60. The provision of Section 69 of Act, indicates that Legislature applicability of section proceedings before never 1959 also contemplated 5 of the Limitation Commissioner. above provides that any Section Act in 69 (2) noted order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may, in respect of which no appeal has been preferred within the period specified in sub-section (1) may be revised by the Commissioner suo motu and the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the proceedings to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be.

61.Thus, Section 69(2) gives suo motu power to the Commissioner to call for and examine the records of the proceedings of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in respect o which no appeal has been preferred within the period specified in sub sub-section

(1). Thus, in a case appeal is not filed within 60 days against the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29773 of 2011

order of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner is vested with suo motu power to call for and examine the records. The suo motu power has been given to the Commissioner to correct the orders of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner even if no appeal has been filed within 60 days. Giving of suo motu power to the Commissioner is with object to ensure that an order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may be corrected when appeal is not filed within time under Section 69 (1). The scheme of Section 69 especially sub-section (2) also re- enforces our conclusion that Legislature applicability of Section 5 in never Section contemplated 69(1) for condoning the delay in filing an appeal by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3.In the present case, the petitioners filed an appeal with a delay of 8 years 11

months and 4 days and the same was rightly rejected by the 1st respondent and there is

no ground to interfere with the same.

4.In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

05.07.2022

KP Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No

N.ANAND VENKATESH. J.,

KP

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29773 of 2011

To

1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn) Department Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

2.Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn) Department, Coimbatore. Registrar Office Pondicherry.

7.The Superintendent of Police (North) Police Head Quarters Pondicherry.

W.P.No.29773 of 2011

05.07.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter