Allowed

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP(MD)/5813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging an order appointing a Fit Person for a temple without prior notice or hearing. Holding that the action violated natural justice principles, the Court set aside the order and directed authorities to follow due process, including issuing notice and affording a hearing, before making a future appointment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order appointing the Fit Person dated 28.12.2020 is set aside. Authorities are directed to issue show cause notice and afford full opportunity of personal hearing before appointing any Fi

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.01.2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 4567 and 4569 of 2021

¶7

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department,

¶12

Dindigul.

¶13

3.The Administrative Officer, (The Fit Person appointed), Arulmigu Vigneswarar Temple, Old Aykudi, Sivagiripatti, Palani Circle. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India,

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶18

to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent culminating in order in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4935A1, dated 28.12.2020 and the consequential order dated 22.02.2021 quash both orders.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. T.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr. P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr. T.Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

¶22

Mr. P.Subbaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶23

The Writ Petition challenges the Order in Sa. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 4935A1 dated 28.12.2020 passed by the First Respondent appointing Fit Person for the Temple of the Third Respondent.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶27

The pivotal attack on the impugned order by the Petitioner, which claims to be an association running the affairs of the Madam, 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.

¶28

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 06.06.2022 filed by the Second Respondent that before passing the impugned order appointing Fit Person for the Temple of the Third 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

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶32

justice and would vitiate the entire proceedings. In that view of the mater, the impugned Order in Sa. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 4935A1 dated 28.12.2020 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 Temple of the Third 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.

¶33

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

¶34

04.01.2023

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶38

¶39

Index : Yes/No

¶40

Note: Issue order copy by 30.01.2023.

¶41

¶42

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai-600 034.

¶43

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department,

¶44

Dindigul.

¶45

3.The Administrative Officer, (The Fit Person appointed), Arulmigu Vigneswarar Temple, Old Aykudi, Sivagiripatti, Palani Circle.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶49

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶50

¶51

W.P. (MD) No. 5813 of 2021

¶52

04.01.2023

¶53

6/6

¶54

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

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunabalan.a Vs The State Tax Officer

Gunabalan.a Vs The State Tax Officer

Rengaraj.S Vs the Joint Commissioner

Chokkalingam @ Thondar Chona.L Vs The Commissioner

Malayandi Vs the Asst Commissioner

Soma.Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner