Madras High Court
Muthukumar vs The Joint Commissioner on 28 January, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.(MD).No.19146 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30.10.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD).No.19146 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16209 and 19369 of 2024
Muthukumar .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department,
Srivilliputhur. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
submit a report afresh before the 1st respondent by conducting enquiry as
contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act 22/1959 in
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.19146 of 2024
respect of O.A.No.30/2023 pertaining to Arulmighu Thangavinayagar Temple,
Vathrayapu, Virudhunagar District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed praying for issuance of a writ of
mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent viz., The Inspector, Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Srivilliputhur to submit a
report afresh before the 1st respondent i.e., The Joint Commissioner, Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai by
conducting an inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 22/1959 (in short "the Act").,
in respect of O.A.No.30/2023.
2. Brief Facts
2.1. The petitioner is a trustee of Arulmighu Thangavinayagar Temple,
Vathrayapu, Virudhunagar District. The said Temple was consecrated in the
early 1900's by Adhinarayana Pillai and Chinnasamy Pillai, children of
Gurusamy Pillai. Both of whom did not have any male children. In terms of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
the will of the founder of the Temple, the Temple could be administered by
male legal heirs. Muthusamy Pillai, Sangaiya Pillai and Thillainayagam Pillai
are the children of the sisters of Adhinarayana Pillai and Chinnasamy Pillai.
2.2. A settlement deed was executed on 15.04.1937 conferring the rights
of trusteeship on Muthusamy Pillai, Sangaiya Pillai and Thillainayagam Pillai.
Pursuant to the above settlement deed, they were functioning as trustees of the
petition Temple. While so, Muthusamy Pillai and Sangaiya Pillai died without
any male children, leaving Thillainayagam Pillai as the sole trustee of the
Temple. After the demise of Thillainayagam Pillai, his legal heir
Muthukrishna Pillai continued as Trustee of the Temple. The petitioner viz.,
Muthukumar and Krishnakumar are the children of Muthukrishna Pillai, who
are the present managing trustees of the Temple.
2.3. While so, a notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner,
Virudhunagar District calling for application, for appointment to the office of
non-hereditary Trustee of the petition temple, fixing the last date for
submission of application as 07.09.2023. Aggrieved by the above notice calling
for application from eligible persons for appointment as non-hereditary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
Trustee, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.21845 of 2023.
The above writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated
08.09.2023, whereby, the impugned notice calling for appointment of non-
hereditary trustees to the petition Temple was quashed, on the premise that the
petitioner's ancestors have constructed the Temple and the respondent
authorities cannot appoint non-hereditary trustee, without issuing notice to the
petitioner. This Court followed the order of the Division Bench of this Court in
Suo Motu W.P.No. 574 of 2015 dated 07.06.2021, wherein, under the heading
“Trustee”, certain directives were issued. The following portion of the Division
Bench order of this Court was extracted by the learned Judge in the order dated
08.09.2023;
"TRUSTEE
(54) The HR&CE Department shall file a report before this
Court within a period of eight (8) weeks listing out the
number of temples without Trustees, the duration of such
vacancy, the particulars of the persons appointed as "Fit
Person" and the steps taken by the Department to appoint
trustees.
(55) If no hereditary trustees stake claim, then steps must be
taken to appoint non-hereditary trustees. The non-hereditary
trustees must be from the religious denomination, to which the
temple belongs to, without the political background.
(56) Stringent rules on the conduct, character, interest and
knowledge on both religious affairs as well as administrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
abilities of the trustees, must be enacted to ensure that the
right person is appointed to manage the religious affairs of
the temples.
(57) Keeping in mind that the overall administration shall be
with the HR&CE Department, the authorities shall supervise
the affairs of the religious institutions ensuring that the
HR&CE Act is strictly complying with by the trustees and
taking necessary remedial steps for which, they are paid an
annual contribution as specified under Section 92."
2.4. After extracting the above portion of the Division Bench's order it
may be relevant to note that while disposing of the above writ petition, this
Court had recorded that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 63(b)
of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 ( Act 22 of 1959), and directed the
respondent therein to consider the said application. The relevant portion of the
order reads as under;
"5. The aforesaid judgment is supporting the case of the
petitioner rather than the respondents. Under clause (55) the
Hon'ble Division Bench has specifically directed that "If no
hereditary trustees stake claim, then steps must be taken to
appoint non-hereditary trustees". In the present case the
petitioner is claiming the hereditary trusteeship and the
petitioner had filed the petition under Section 63(b) of Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22/1959)
recently. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
petitioner's application to recognize his rights and the said
exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until then the
petitioner shall manage the temple and the respondents shall not
interfere in the management of the temple.
6. The impugned notice is issued calling for appointment of
trustees in the petitioner's temple, hence the same is quashed as
far as the petitioner's temple is concerned. With the above said
observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed".
2.5. Pursuant thereto, the Inspector of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE
Department Srivilliputhur i.e., the 2nd respondent herein issued a notice calling
upon the petitioner for an inquiry on 08.03.2024, while also directing the
petitioner to submit relevant documents and statements. The petitioner was
unable to attend the hearing on the said date. The 2nd respondent vide
communication dated 02.04.2024, issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to
appear on 22.04.2024 at 03.00 p.m. along with relevant records. The petitioner
visited the office of the 2nd respondent on 22.04.2024, the 2nd respondent was
not available and the petitioner was informed that the next hearing/inquiry
would be intimated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
2.6. However, the 2nd respondent proceeded to submit a report to the 1st
respondent without obtaining relevant records, statements from local residents.
In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed praying for a
Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to submit a fresh report by
conducting enquiry afresh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that if they are constrained to proceed with the original application
on the basis of the report, submitted by the 2nd respondent they would be
handicapped, inasmuch as the report submitted by the 2 nd respondent, which is
intended to be acted upon by the 1st respondent, is a report which is
made/prepared without taking into account the material sought to be relied
upon by the petitioner. In other words, the report submitted by the 2 nd
respondent is incomplete and any adjudication under Section 63(b) of the Act,
on the basis of the said report would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.
2.7. Though the present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the
second respondent to submit a report afresh, however, during the course of
hearing certain doubts were expressed by this Court as to jurisdiction/ authority
of the 2nd respondent to carry out an enquiry pursuant to an application made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
under Section 63(b) of the Act. This question assumes relevance inasmuch it is
trite law that a mandamus would lie only if it is shown that there was a
statutory obligation and despite request there has been inaction on the part of
the statutory authority in discharging its obligation. It thus becomes necessary
to find if the 2nd respondent is within its jurisdiction in making an Inquiry and
submitting a report on an application filed under Section 63(b) of the Act.
3. Analysis of relevant Provisions and Rules
3.1 Before proceeding further, it may be relevant and necessary to refer
to Section 63 of the Act, which reads as under :
“63. [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner]
[Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] to decide certain disputes
and matters - Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter
provided, [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the
case may be,] [Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995.] shall have
power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters:-
(a)whether an institution is religious institution;
(b)whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee;
(c)whether any property or money is a religious endowment;
(d)whether any property or money is a specific endowment;
(e)whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any
honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what
the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other
matter;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
(f)whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a
religious or secular character; and whether any property or money has
been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses; and
(g)where any property or money has been given for the support
of an institution which is partly of a religious and partly of a secular
character, or the performance of any service or charity connected with
such an institution or the performance of a charity which is partly of a
religious and partly of a secular character or where any property or
money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular
uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to
religious uses.”
3.2. A reading of the above provision would suggest that the Joint
Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner shall have power “to inquire into
and decide”, various matters and disputes enumerated therein, which inter alia
includes as to whether a trustee holds office as a hereditary trustee.
3.3. From a reading of the above provision, it appears that the “inquiry
and the decision on the dispute”, and matters enumerated in clause (a) to (g) to
Section 63 of the Act, are to be made by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy
Commissioner. To a pointed question, as to whether the power to conduct an
inquiry conferred on the Joint Commissioner, can be delegated by the Joint
Commissioner, the respondents were unable to point out any provision. On
gleaning through the provisions of the HR&CE Act and the Rules made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
thereunder the following provisions appears to be relevant with regard to
delegation of powers under the said Act. Sections 13 and 14 of the HR&CE,
reads as under:
“13. Delegation to [Additional Commissioner], [Joint
Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners].—(1) The Commissioner
shall, with the previous approval of the Government, specify the area
within which each [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner], if
there is more than one, shall exercise the powers conferred and
discharge the duties imposed by this act or the rules made thereunder
on a [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] as such.
(2) The Commissioner may delegate any of the powers conferred or
duties imposed on him by this Act or the rules made thereunder
[including the powers and duties of an Assistant Commissioner which
may be exercised by the Commissioner under the proviso to sub-
Section (2) of Section 14 but not including the powers and duties of
the Commissioner under 3[Section 21, 22, 46, 47, 59, 69, 72] or sub-
Section (2) of Section 92, in respect of any area or any class or group
of institutions in the State or any area therein to [Additional
Commissioner], or [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner],
subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by
general or special order, lay down and subject also to such
limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of
delegation.
14. Territorial jurisdiction and powers and duties of Assistant
Commissioners.—(1) The Commissioner shall, with the previous
approval of the Government, divide the State into divisions, each of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
which shall be in the charge of an Assistant Commissioner.
(2) An Assistant Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred
and discharge the duties imposed on him by this Act or the rules
made thereunder in respect of his division : Provided that the
Commissioner may, by order in writing, declare that the exercise and
discharge of all or any of such powers and duties shall be subject to
such exceptions, limitations and conditions as may be specified in the
order, and may himself exercise or discharge any power or duty so
excepted.
[(2-A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section (2), an
Assistant Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred and
discharge the duties imposed on him by this Act or the rules made
thereunder in respect of—
(i) all temples situated in his division other than temples
included in the list published under Section 46,
(ii) the specific endowments attached to such temples other
than specific endowments included in the list published under
Section 46, and
(iii) the charitable endowments in his division to which the
provisions of this Act have been extended under Section 3 :
Provided that where a specific endowment is attached to two or more
temples comprised within the jurisdiction of two or more Assistant
Commissioners or where a charitable endowment to which the
provisions of the Act have been extended under Section 3 consists of
properties situated within the jurisdiction of two or more Assistant
Commissioners, the Commissioner shall decide as to which of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
Assistant Commissioners shall exercise the powers and discharge the
duties in respect of such specific endowment or charitable
endowment :
Provided further that where a specific endowment is attached partly
to one or more temples included in the list published under Section 46
and partly to one or more temples not so included, only the
Commissioner shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties in
respect of such specific endowments.]
(3) The Commissioner may delegate to an Assistant Commissioner
any of the powers conferred or duties imposed on the Commissioner
by this Act or the rules made thereunder (other than the powers and
duties referred to in [Sections 21, 22, 46, 47, 59, 69, 72] or sub-
Section (2)of Section 92) in respect of the division of the Assistant
Commissioner or of any institutions or any clause or group of
institutions in that division, subject to such restrictions and control as
the Government may, by general or special order lay down and
subject also to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be
specified in the order of delegation.
(4) The Inspector shall discharge such duties as may be assigned to
him by the Commissioner, either by general or special order, under
the Act or the rules made thereunder in respect of such religious
institutions as may be prescribed”.
3.4. It may also be relevant to note that Rules have been framed in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 116 of the Act, prescribing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
method and manner for delegation of powers. It may thus be relevant to extract
the relevant rules which reads as under:
"DELEGATION OF POWERS RULES.
(G. O. Ms. No. 4850, Revenue, dated the 26 th November 1960) 13 SRO
No. d-708 of 1960.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 116
read with Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu
Act 22 of 1959), the Governor ofTamil Nadu hereby makes the
following rules, namely:-
1. These rules may be called the Delegation of Powers Rules.
2. Delegation of the Commissioner’s powers and duties to a 14 [Joint
Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner) under Section 13(2) or an
Assistant Commissioner under Section 14(3) shall be made in writing.
3. The Commissioner shall have power to vary or cancel an order of
delegation and such an order shall be made in writing.
4. An order delegating the powers and duties of the Commissioner to a
Joint or a Deputy Commissioner) or an Assistant Commissioner or
modifying or cancelling the delegation, shall be published in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette and in the District Gazette in the language
or languages of the district or districts concerned and by affixture on
the notice boards of the offices of the Commissioner, 15 [Joint or
Deputy Commissioners) and the Assistant Commissioners.
5. The Commissioner, while delegating any of his powers shall
expressly reserve to himself the right of exercising the powers vested in
him under Sections 21 and 22 over the orders passed by a [Joint
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner) or an Assistant Commissioner
under the delegated powers."
3.5. From a reading of the above provisions viz., Sections 13 and 14 of
the Act along with “Delegation of Power Rules”, the following position
appears to emerge:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
a. Power to delegate is conferred under the Act only to the
Commissioner. The Commissioner may delegate any of the powers conferred
and duties imposed on him under the Act, to the Additional Commissioner or
the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, subject to such restrictions
and control as the Government may, by general or special order, lay down and
subject also to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in
the order of delegation.
b. Having found on a reading of the above Sections and Rules, that
power to delegate is conferred only with the Commissioner, any attempt to
understand the Joint Commissioner, being conferred with power to delegate in
the absence of an express provision as in the case of Commissioner, may fall
foul of the maxim “expresssio unious est exclusio alterious”, meaning
thereby the specific mention of one will exclude the other 1. Applying the above
maxim it would be clear that whenever the legislature intended to confer power
to delegate, it had provided for expressly, thus power of delegation cannot be
implied.
c. It is also well established that judicial or quasi-judicial power conferred
1 Pulag Tung v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
by a statute cannot be delegated except when specifically permitted. A
discretion conferred by statute is prima facie intended to be exercised by the
authority on which the statute has conferred it and by no other authority 2. In
other words, when the Act prescribes a particular body or officer to exercise a
power, in the present case, the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 of the
Act, it must be exercised by that body or officer and none else, unless the Act
by express words or necessary implication permits delegation, in which event,
it may also be exercised by the delegate if delegation is made in accordance
with the terms of the Act but not other- wise3.
4. It may also be relevant to refer to Halsbury's Law of England
wherein the principles of delegation was explained as under:
.........''Thus where a named officer has been vested with a
discretionary power, another officer cannot exercise his powers
unless statutorily authorised so to do. The court will condemn as
ultra vires action taken by agents, sub-committees or delegates
however expressly authorised by the authority entrusted with the
power unless the power is intended to be delegable by the statute
conferring such power."
2 Gopalji Khanna v. Allahabad Bank, 1996 (3) SCC 538
3 Marathwada University v. Sheshrao Balwantrao Chavan, AIR 1989 SC 1582
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
4.1. Keeping the above principle in mind it leaves no room for any doubt
in my mind, that the power to conduct an inquiry, which inter alia includes
issue of summons, gathering/collecting evidence and recording of oral
evidence in proceedings under Section 63 of the Act, ought to be performed by
the Joint Commissioner and no other authority including the Inspector i.e., the
second respondent herein.
5. Here it may also be relevant rather necessary to refer to HOLDING
OF INQUIRIES RULES, 1961, made in exercise of the power and conferred
under Section 116. The relevant portion of the said rule reads as under:
"HOLDING OF INQUIRIES RULES
SRO No. d-895 of 1961. - In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (iii) of sub-Section (2) of Section 116 of the Tamil Nadu
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil
Nadu Act 22 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes
the following rules,namely:
1. These rules may be called the Holding of Inquiries Rules.
2. An Assistant Commissioner acting under the powers delegated
to him under sub-Section (3) of Section 14 or vested in him under
any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. [the
Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner,
the Government, as the case may be,] (hereinafter referred to as
the appropriate authority) acting under the powers vested in it by
any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder may,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
in any proceedings taken by or instituted before it under the
provisions of the Act, issue notice to the trustees or the Executive
Officer of the religious institution concerned or the respondent in
any application filed before it to show cause against any action
applied for or proposed to be taken.
.....
6. At any stage during the course of any proceeding, the
appropriate authority may, on his or their own motion or at the
request of any party, issue summons to any person to give
evidence as a witness or to produce any document in his
possession and may examine him as a witness or require him to
produce such document.
7. Every summons for the attendance of a person to give evidence
or to produce document shall specify the time and place at which
and the date on which he is required to attend and also whether
his attendance is required for the purpose and any particular
document, which the person summoned is called upon to produce,
shall be described with reasonable accuracy.
8. Whoever is summoned to appear and give evidence in a
proceeding shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the
summons for that purpose and whoever is summoned to produce a
document shall either attend to produce it or cause it to be
produced at such time and place or cause such document to be
sent by registered post so as to reach the authority who
summoned him at such time and place.
.....
13. Where it is necessary to detain the person summoned for a
longer period than one day, the party at whose instance he was
summoned shall pay to the appropriate authority such sum as he
or they may fix to defray the expenses of such detention for such
further period and, in default of such deposit, the person
summoned shall be discharged without being required to give
evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
14. (1) Where a witness is about to leave the jurisdiction of the
appropriate authority or other sufficient cause is shown to the
satisfaction of the appropriate authority why his evidence should
be taken immediately, the appropriate authority may, on the
application of any party or of the witness, at any time after the
institution of the proceeding, take the evidence of such witness.
(2) Where such evidence is not taken forthwith and in the
presence of the parties, if any, such notice, as the appropriate
authority thinks sufficient, of the day fixed for the examination,
shall be given to the parties, if any.
15. The appropriate authority may, at any stage of an enquiry,
recall any witness who has been examined and may put such
questions to him, as the appropriate authority may think fit.
16. (1) The appropriate authority may, in his or their discretion,
upon the application of any of the parties to a proceeding, send
for, either from his or their own records or from any other public
officer the record of any proceedings and inspect the same.
(2) Every application made under this rule shall be suppor-
ted by an affidavit showing how the record is material to the pro-
ceeding in which the application is made, and that the applicant
cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly
authenticated copy of the record or of such portion thereof as the
applicant requires, or that the production of the original is
necessary for the purpose of justice. If the application is granted,
the appropriate authority shall address a letter of request to the
officer or the Court in whose custody the record is.
(3) The applicant shall deposit in cash the expenses for
transmission of the letter of request and for sending for, and the
return of, the record.
17. All persons who appear in response to the notice issued or
published in proceedings under Sections 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71
and 72 shall, within the time fixed in the notice or within such
further time as may be granted, file written statements containing
their objections or suggestions. (The Deputy Commissioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
[Joint Commissioner) or the Commissioner, as the case may be,
may, however, permit any person who has not filed a written
statement to make representations at the time of inquiry.
.....
19. The Deputy Commissioner, (Joint Commissioner) or the
Commissioner, as the case may be, shall record the oral evidence
of witness in his own handwriting.
20. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central
Act V of 1908) and the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular
Orders shall apply, as far as practicable, to appearance of
pleader and to affidavits, production of documents, examination
of witnesses, taking of oral evidence, proof by affidavits, filling of
exhibits, issue of commissions, return of documents not admitted
in evidence, and other connected matters, and the inquiry shall be
made, as far as practicable, in the manner laid down in the said
Code for the trial of suits.”
5.1 A reading of the “HOLDING OF THE INQUIRIES RULES”, would
show that the Joint Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the
Commissioner, the Government, acting under the powers vested in them under
the Act, are “appropriate authorities” for the purposes of “Holding of
Inquiries Rules”.
5.2. The “appropriate authority” i.e., the Joint Commissioner for the
purposes of Section 63 of the Act, may issue summon to any person to give
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
evidence as a witness or produce any documents, in his possession and
examine such person as a witness or require him to produce such documents,
the “appropriate authority” i.e., Joint Commissioner in the present case should
have the power to detain the person summoned for a period longer than a day,
recall any witness and to take evidence of such witnesses who are necessary.
Importantly, the oral evidence of witnesses shall be recorded by the Deputy
Commissioner, Joint Commissioner or Commissioner in his own handwriting.
5.3. From a reading of the “Holding of Inquiries Rules”, it appears that
the Joint Commissioner cannot delegate the power to hold inquiries including
the power to gather evidence. While this court is conscious that a quasi-
judicial authority authorized to regulate its procedure may appoint a person to
hear and receive evidence from interested parties for the purpose of informing
the authority of the evidence and submissions provided, the decisions is
reached after consideration of the evidence and submissions so received and
not merely on the report of the person appointed to collect them. However the
above rule /principle appears to stand excluded for the purposes of Section 63
of the Act, in view of the fact that the Holding of Inquiries Rules expressly
provides that the entire exercise commencing with issuing summons to witness,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
calling for evidence/documents and importantly recording of oral evidence
ought to be performed only by the“appropriate authority” i.e., the Joint
Commissioner in the present case. The scheme of the Act and Rules leave no
room for the Joint Commissioner to delegate any of the exercises covered
under the “Holding of Inquiries Rules”, including the power to gather evidence
or summon or hold inquiry to the Inspector.
5.4. For the sake of completion, it may be relevant to examine sub-
section (4) to Section 14 of the Act, which provides for the discharge of certain
duties by the Inspector i.e., the second respondent herein and the same reads as
under:
“4) The Inspector shall discharge such duties as may be
assigned to him by the Commissioner either, by general or
special order, under the Act, or the rules made thereunder, in
respect of such religious institutions as may be prescribed.”
5.5. Importantly, sub Section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, provides that
the Inspector shall discharge such duties as may be assigned to him by the
Commissioner, either by general or special order, under the Act or the rules
thereunder in respect such religious institutions as may be prescribed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
5.6. On a reading of the above sub section, it appears that the Inspector
may discharge his duties, which may be assigned either by general or special
order by the Commissioner under the Act or Rules, in respect of “religious
institutions” that may be prescribed. To a pointed question as to whether there
are any orders assigning duties to the inspector the learned Additional
Government Pleader would only place reliance upon the following order:
"(G.O. Ms. No. 1182, Revenue, dated 25th September 1953)
“71. If an application is made claiming an institution to be
outside the scope of the Act, a detail report should be call for
from the inspecting staff under the following heading. They
should also give wide publicity of the application so that persons
interested may give their views in the matter.”
5.7. It appears to me that the above Order may have no bearing on the
question of delegation of power to conduct inquiry under Section 63 by the
Joint Commissioner of the Act to the Inspector.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
6. In the light of the above discussion and keeping in view the Scheme of
the Act and Rules, it appears that the 2nd respondent herein viz., the Inspector
may not have any power nor can the Joint Commissioner delegate to the
Inspector, the power to summon or call for inquiry of an applicant or any other
party in a proceeding under Section 63(b) of the Act. The report of the
Inspector, the 2nd respondent herein, does not have any sanctity or basis in law.
7. In view thereof, the “appropriate authority” i.e., the 1st respondent
herein, shall conduct an inquiry on the original application under Section 63(b)
of the Act, filed by the petitioner, in compliance and in accordance with
“Holding of Inquiries Rules”.
8. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.01.2025
gya / mrn
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
To:
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department,
Srivilliputhur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya / mrn
28.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:16:33 pm )
