Quashed

Nachiappan.Sp v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jan 2023WP(MD)/2438/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court quashed an order appointing a Fit Person for a temple. The court held that failing to issue a show-cause notice or grant a personal hearing in violation of natural justice rendered the administrative decision illegal and void.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Order Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 245/2021/A4 appointing the Fit Person is set aside. Authorities to issue notice and afford hearing before passing a reasoned order.

Nachiappan.Sp Vs The Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.01.2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021 and W.M.P. (MD) No.2012 of 2021

SP.Nachiappan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board (HR&CE), Paramakudi, Ramnad District.

¶11

Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muthumariamman Thirukoil, Meenakshipuram, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1^st Respondent dated 22.01.2021 (received on 01.02.2021) in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.245/2021/A4 and quash the same and consequently restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the petitioner's management and peaceful administration of Sree Lakshmi Sree Kuberar Thirukoil, Thiruveesar Nagar, Pillaiyarpatti, Tirupattur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Sundar Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr. P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader for R1

¶17

Dr. C.Guhaseelarupan for R2 ORDER

¶18

Heard Mr. R.Sundar Srinivasan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

¶19

Mr. P.Subbaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the First Respondent and Mr. C.Guhaseelarupan, Learned Counsel, who takes notice for the Second Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶20

The Writ Petition challenges the Order in Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No.245/ 2021/A4 dated 22.01.2021 passed by the First Respondent appointing Fit Person for the Temple of the Second Respondent.

¶21

The pivotal attack on the impugned order by the Petitioner, who claims to have donated land for constructing the Temple of the Second Respondent, is that before the passing of the impugned order, neither any notice nor any opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded by the First Respondent.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶25

¶26

It is trite law that any administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, meaning thereby that the person concerned must be informed of the case with supporting evidence against him and he must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa -vs- Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269). There is nothing to show either in the impugned order or in the Counter-Affidavit dated 18.02.2021 filed by the First Respondent Respondent that before passing the impugned order appointing Fit Person for the Temple of the Second Respondent, any show cause notice has been issued to the to the Petitioner and the other persons concerned calling for explanation from them with supporting materials in that regard. Such incurable flaw in decision making by the First Respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice and would vitiate the entire proceedings. In that view of the mater, the impugned Order in Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 245/2021/A4 passed by the First Respondent is set aside leaving it open to the concerned authorities to appropriately deal with the matter following due process. If the concerned authorities intend to appoint any Fit Person to the 3/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶29

Temple of the Second Respondent in future, it shall be incumbent upon them to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner and other persons concerned with supporting materials and after affording full opportunity of personal hearing to them and considering each of the objections raised, a reasoned order shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law for the prescribed procedure in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the decision taken shall be communicated to the concerned persons under written acknowledgment.

¶30

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶31

05.01.2023

¶32

pkn

¶33

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶34

Note: Issue order copy by 10.01.2023.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶38

¶39

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board (HR&CE), Paramakudi, Ramnad District.

¶40

Executive Officer, Arulmigu Muthumariamman Thirukoil, Meenakshipuram, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District.

¶41

5/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶44

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶45

pkn

¶46

W.P. (MD) No. 2438 of 2021

¶47

05.01.2023

¶48

6/6

¶49

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

Nachiappan.Sp v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachiappan.Sp v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malayandi Vs the Asst Commissioner

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam Vs the Commissioner

Soma.Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner

Sitaraman Ab Vs the Commissioner

M.Subbaiah Pillai, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R. Kandasamy Vs the Commissioner