S.Rathinavel vs The Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 5176 Mad

                                                           1

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 01.06.2023

                                                         CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                                 W.P No.13932 of 2023

                S.Rathinavel                                                          Petitioner

                                                          vs.

                1.The Commissioner,
                  HR & CE, Administration Department,
                  Mahatma Gandhi Road,
                  Nungambakkam,
                  Chennai – 600 034.

                2.The Executive Officer,
                  Arulmighu Veerabathraswamy Temple,
                  Annai Indira Gandhi Salai @ Nellukara Street,
                  Kanchipuram,
                  Kanchipuram District.                                            Respondents

                Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records
                relating to the impugned proceedings dated 06.04.2022 issued by the 2nd
                respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to
                fix the Fair Rent after providing due opportunity to the petitioner to raise the
                objections on his behalf.
                                        For Petitioner    : Ms.S.Magarani
                                        For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
                                                          Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                          2


                                                     ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2 nd

respondent dated 06.04.2022 fixing the fair rent for the premises which is in

occupation of the petitioner.

2.Heard Ms.S.Magarani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

3.The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the fair rent has been fixed in gross violation of the relevant

Government Orders and the guidelines that have been prescribed by the

Government. It was contended that the estimation of the ground rent was done

even without taking into consideration the guideline value and applying the

proper multiplier method. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent warrants the

interference of this Court and that the matter has to be remanded back to the file

of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel in order to substantiate her

submission relied upon by the judgment of this Court in R.Jaganathan vs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Mahatma Gandhi

Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 and others reported in 2023 1

CTC 737.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of

the respondents submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable,

since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 34-A of

the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (herein

after referred to as “the Act”). The learned Government Advocate further

submitted that the order was passed during April 2022 and thereafter, since the

rent was not paid, the petitioner was treated as an encroacher and proceedings

have been initiated under Section 78 of the Act. It is under these circumstances,

the present writ petition has been filed before this Court to scuttle the steps

taken by the respondents to proceed further with the eviction proceedings.

5.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either

side and also the materials available on record.

6.The main ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the fair rent has been fixed without following the relevant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Government Orders and the guidelines issued by the Government. In the

considered view of this Court, the determination of the fair rent by the 2nd

respondent is subject to an efficacious and alternative remedy under Section 34-

A (3) of the Act. If such an appeal is filed before the Commissioner, the

aggrieved person can always putforth the grounds of challenge regarding the

fair rent that is fixed for the premises in occupation of the concerned person.

The petitioner for reasons best known to him has not chosen to file an appeal

before the Commissioner.

7.Where there is an efficacious alternative remedy provided under the

enactment, the writ Court will be very slow to entertain the writ petition unless

the Court finds that the order has been passed in violation of principles of

natural justice or the authority who passed the order lacks jurisdiction or there is

a patent illegality or arbitrariness in exercise of jurisdiction. The case in hand

does not fall under any of these categories. The grievance that has been

expressed by the petitioner can very well be put forth by way of filing an

appeal before the Commissioner of HR & CE Department. In view of the same,

this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the ground of

availability of an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal for the

petitioner.

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

8.The judgment that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner shows that the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal was put to

challenge in the writ petition. This judgment will not apply to the facts of the

present case, since the reported judgment was a case where the aggrieved

person had exercised his right of appeal and thereafter, filed the writ petition.

Whereas, in the case in hand, the alternative remedy has not been availed and

straight away the proceedings of the 2nd respondent has been put to challenge in

this writ petition. Hence, the judgment that was relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner does not in any way help the case of the petitioner.

9.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to

entertain the writ petition and if the law so permits, it will always be left open to

the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy as provided under Section 34 (A) of

the act.

10.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.

                                                                                   01.06.2023
               Index            : Yes/No
               Internet         : Yes/No
               Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


                Neutral Citation Case   : Yes/No
                ssr




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


                                                                  N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
                                                                                     ssr
                To

                1.The Commissioner,
                  HR & CE, Administration Department,
                  Mahatma Gandhi Road,
                  Nungambakkam,
                  Chennai – 600 034.

                2.The Executive Officer,
                  Arulmighu Veerabathraswamy Temple,

Annai Indira Gandhi Salai @ Nellukara Street, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

W.P No.13932 of 2023

01.06.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis