Madras High Court
Radha Soami Satsang Beas vs The Secretary To Government on 16 August, 2024
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar, C. Saravanan
W.A.No.1964 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1964 of 2018
Radha Soami Satsang Beas
Rep. By Area Secretary (Tamil Nadu)
No.62, Poonamallee Bye-Pass Road
Chennai – 600 056. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Commissioner
Poonamallee Municipality
Municipal Office, 1A, Kandasamy Nagar
Trunk Road, Poonamallee
Chennai – 600056. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, against
the order in W.P.No.8054 of 2017 dated 13.07.2018.
For the Appellant : Mr.Rajesh Chander Kumar
Rohra
Senior Advocate
for Mr.V.Shantharam
For the Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 9
W.A.No.1964 of 2018
for R3
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order passed by
the writ court dated 13.07.2018 in W.P.No.8054 of 2019 in the
case of Radha Soami Satsang Beas vs. The Secretary to
Government and Ors.
2.1. When this appeal came up for final hearing today,
learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Rajesh Chander Kumar Rohra,
appearing for the appellant would point out that the learned Single
Judge, through the impugned order, has directed the respondent
Local Authority to consider the request of the appellant, seeking
exemption under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District
Municipalities Act, 1920, from the Revenue to levy property tax.
According to the appellant, the property of the appellant is utilized
purely for religious purposes and such directions, issued by the
learned Single Judge, has not been complied with.
2.2. More so, at the time of issuing the said directions, the
Writ Court also directed the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit a
sum of Rs.75,000/- as a condition precedent. Aggrieved only from
the said portion of the directions issued by the Writ Court, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal has been preferred.
2.3. During the pendency of the appeal, though the appellant
has been enjoying interim stay, by the order dated 15.07.2021, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court has given direction to consider the
request of the appellant for giving exemption from the purview of
property tax on the ground of religious activities being undertaken
in the concerned property. Even that direction, given by the
Division Bench dated 15.07.2021, has not been complied with.
3. However, Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the third respondent states that pursuant
to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is
impugned herein, as well as the directions given by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court by order dated 15.07.2021 during the
pendency of the writ appeal, the third respondent Municipality has
considered the request made by the appellant and after giving
elaborate reasons, the plea of the appellant was rejected by the
order dated 06.09.2021 and the learned Government Advocate has
also produced a copy of the said order dated 06.09.2021 for our
perusal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. We have gone through the said order, where, inter alia,
the third respondent has stated as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Relying upon this order, the learned Government Advocate
would submit that now, the plea raised by the appellant/writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner since has been considered and rejected on merits, the
present appeal cannot survive. Further, as the directions given by
the learned Single Judge has been complied with and orders, on
merits, has also been passed by the third respondent, it is for the
appellant/writ petitioner to take a call.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, in
response to the said development, would state that the appellant
would be ready and is willing to challenge the order, now passed
by the third respondent dated 06.09.2021, in the manner known to
law. However, all along, since the appellant/writ petitioner has
been enjoying the interim order during the pendency of this
appeal, a reasonable time may be given by this Court to workout
the remedy by the appellant against the order dated 06.09.2021
and some interim protection also could be given.
7. We have considered the said rival submissions made by
learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the
materials placed before this Court.
8. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned
Government Advocate for the third respondent, since the order has
been passed on 06.09.2021, whereby, the plea raised by the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant was rejected, it is open to the appellant to challenge the
same in the manner known to law. Therefore, there is no effective
challenge available as of now in this appeal as against the order
impugned. But, at the same time, since the appellant having been
enjoying the interim order all along in the writ appeal during its
pendency and now he wants to challenge the order dated
06.09.2021, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal with the
following orders:-
(i) The present appeal, since is liable to be
dismissed in view of the aforesaid discussion, it
is dismissed;
(ii) However, it is open to the appellant to
workout the remedy as against the order passed
by the third respondent dated 06.09.2021 in the
manner known to law. In that case, we feel that
four weeks' time can be given to the appellant to
work out his remedy;
(iii) Till such time, status quo, as on today, shall
be maintained insofar as the demand of property
tax made by the third respondent against the
appellant.
9. With these directions, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15676
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2018 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J)
16.08.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Commissioner
Poonamallee Municipality
Municipal Office, 1A, Kandasamy Nagar
Trunk Road, Poonamallee
Chennai – 600056.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
