Madras High Court
R.Manoharan vs The Commissioner on 10 June, 2022
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4618 and 4620 of 2022
W.A.(MD)No.515 of 2022:-
R.Manoharan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Sivagangai.
3.Muthuramalingam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order of this Court, dated 12.04.2022 made in W.P.
(MD)No.2863 of 2018.
For Appellant :Mr.J.John
For R1 and R2 :Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
W.A.(MD)No.516 of 2022:-
1.M.Murugesan
2.R.Muthuramanlingam
3.K.Dharmaraj ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Sivagangai.
3.Muthuramalingam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order of this Court, dated 12.04.2022 made in W.P.
(MD)No.10246 of 2018.
For Appellants :Mr.J.John
For R1 and R2 :Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
The appellants in these Writ Appeals preferred
independent Writ Petitions.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
2.In the first Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2863 of 2022,
filed by the appellant in W.A(MD)No.515 of 2022, the prayer was
that the impugned order passed by the first respondent confirming
the order of the second respondent should be quashed.
3.The appellants in W.A(MD)No.516 of 2022 filed W.P.
(MD)No.10246 of 2022, challenging the order of the first
respondent in A.P.No.18 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017 confirming the
order of the second respondent, dated 17.01.2017 in O.A.No.2 of
2009.
4.The orders impugned in the Writ Petitions filed by the
appellants were passed by the second respondent/Joint
Commissioner under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious Charitable and Endowments Act. The appellants have
preferred the appeals before the Commissioner of HR & CE
Department, aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner
under Section 69 of the Act. The same were dismissed by the first
respondent. Aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent, the
appellants have preferred the respective Writ Petitions, as indicated
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
above.
5.As against the order passed by the first respondent under
Section 69 of the Act, the only remedy available to the aggrieved
persons is to file a statutory suit under Section 70 of the Act.
Section 70 of the Act reads as follows:
“70. Suits and appeals.—(1) Any party aggrieved by an
order passed by the Commissioner—
(i) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 69
and relating to any of the matters specified in section 63, section 64
or section 67 ; or
(ii) under section 63, section 64 or section 67 read with
sub-section (1)(a), 2 or (4)(a) of section 22 or under section 65 may,
within ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by
him, institute a suit in the Court against such order, and the Court
may modify or cancel such order, but it shall have no power to stay
of order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit.
(2) Any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court under
sub-section (1), may, within ninety days from the date of the
decree, appeal to the High Court.”
6.The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that a
statutory suit is not necessary having regard to the nature of
application filed before the Joint Commissioner, which gives the
right or cause of action to maintain an appeal under Section 69 of
the Act.
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
7.The learned Counsel for the appellants states that the
hereditaryship was abolished in the year 1972 and that therefore,
the appellants are entitled to perform poojariship jointly in the
temple. This cannot be a reason for maintaining a Writ Petition.
Even if the hereditaryship is abolished, the claim of individual has
been considered in exercise of the Joint Commissioner's power
under Section 63(3) of the Act.
8.In such circumstances, the remedy available to the
appellants after filing an appeal under Section 69(e) of the Act is
not by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, but to go by way of a statutory
suit under Section 70 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge after narrating the facts, has given liberty to the Writ
Petitioners/appellants to approach the Civil Court as provided under
Section 70 of the Act. This Court is unable to find any error or
illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, these
appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
10.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Sivagangai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr
W.A(MD)Nos.515 and 516 of 2022
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
