Madras High Court
K.A.Sreedharan vs The Commissioner on 4 March, 2022
W.A.No.450 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.450 of 2022
K.A.Sreedharan .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
Coimbatore District
Coimbatore.
3. The Executive Officer
M/s. Arulmigu Maagaliamman Thirukovil
Rangegowder Street
Coimbatore 641 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 24.11.2021 made in W.P.No.25059 of 2021.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.450 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.Prakash Goklaney
For the Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan
Spl. Govt. Pleader (HR&CE)
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal is against the order dated 24.11.2021,
whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction on the
respondents to provide a copy of the order dated 20.04.2017
referred to in the letter dated 28.07.2020. It is said that without
supplying the reasons for denial of the copy of the letter dated
20.04.2017, the writ petition was dismissed. In view of the above,
the appeal has been preferred as the learned Single Judge ought to
have given a direction to the respondents to furnish a copy of the
order dated 20.04.2017.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.450 of 2022
3. The appeal has been opposed by learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the non-appellants. He has given
background of the case to show the petition to be not bona fide.
Referring to the letter dated 28.07.2020, referred to in the prayer
clause, it is submitted that the rent was re-determined and
accordingly, the appellant was directed to pay the arrears of rent. It
is only to delay the payment of arrears of rent that he was trying to
take one or other pretext. Though, the information sought by the
appellant was supplied, yet, he remains unsatisfied and finally, an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was given on
28.09.2021. The same was also replied and if the petitioner was not
satisfied with the aforesaid, he could have taken the recourse of
appeal under the Right To Information Act, 2005.
4. The writ petition was not even maintainable, yet, the
learned Single Judge has recorded the conduct of the
petitioner/appellant while dismissing the writ petition. It is also
stated that on account of default of the petitioner/appellant in the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.450 of 2022
payment of arrears of rent, proceedings under Section 78 of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act were initiated and
now a final order of eviction has also been passed. The writ petition
was filed at the stage when the respondents were pursuing the
recovery of the arrears of rent. Thus, it was not a bona fide petition.
A prayer is made to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and
perused the records.
6. The writ petition was filed only seeking a copy of the order
dated 20.04.2017, though a remedy to seek an information exists
under the Act of 2005. In any case, learned Single Judge considered
the issue in reference to the conduct of the writ petitioner and
dismissed the petition. It is a case where a copy of the order dated
28.07.2020 was served on the petitioner seeking payment of
arrears of rent and knowing about it, without making the payment,
the petitioner tried to delay the process.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.450 of 2022
7. The writ petition was filed at the stage when another
application dated 20.09.2021 seeking some information under the
Act of 2005 was dealt with by order dated 27.09.2021. If the
information sought by the appellant was not provided, he was
having a remedy of appeal under the Act of 2005. However, without
availing the aforesaid, the writ petition was filed. The writ petition
could have been dismissed on the ground aforesaid, but addressing
the conduct of the appellant, it has been dismissed.
8. Now, the position is that an order under Section 78 of the
Act of 1959 has already been passed by the second respondent.
Since the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was
also submitted before the filing of the writ petition, the writ petition
itself was not maintainable. For that, the appellant should have
taken the remedy of appeal under the Act of 2005. Accordingly,
without accepting the argument, we dismiss the appeal as well as
the writ petition on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal
under the Act of 2005 and otherwise, we do not find any merit or
any error in the impugned order to cause interference.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.450 of 2022
9. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will
not prevent the appellant to challenge determination of rent and the
order under Section 78 of the Act of 1959, if he so chooses and the
dismissal of the writ appeal and writ petition would not come in the
way. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.3265
of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
04.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
To
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Coimbatore District
Coimbatore.
3. The Executive Officer
M/s. Arulmigu Maagaliamman Thirukovil
Rangegowder Street
Coimbatore 641 001.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.450 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
kpl
W.A.No.450 of 2022
04.03.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
