Quashed

Malayandi v. the Asst Commissioner

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP(MD)/5922/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order appointing a fit person for a temple via writ petition, alleging violation of natural justice due to non-issue of a show cause notice and lack of hearing. The High Court held the order void and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 17.07.2019 setting aside the appointment is quashed and the INspector is directed to issue a notice and afford a hearing before passing any future order.

Malayandi Vs the Asst Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 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. 5922 of 2021 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 4640 and 4641 of 2021

Malayandi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruchirappalli.

¶11

2.The Inspector,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Manapparai-2, cum Takkar of Arulmighu Velamalai Kannimar Thirukovil, Manapparai, Karadipatti, Velakurichi Village, Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of proceedings of the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4118/2019/A5, dated 17.07.2019 appointing a Thakkar for Arulmighu Velamalai Kannimar Thirukovil quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. H.Lakshmi Shankar

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 of 2021

¶18

For Respondents : Mr. P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Mr. H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.Subbaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶21

The Writ Petition challenges the Order in Se. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 4118/ 2019/A5 dated 17.07.2019 passed by the First Respondent appointing Fit Person for the Temple of the Second Respondent.

¶22

The pivotal attack on the impugned order by the Petitioner, who claims to be a Herditary Trustee of 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.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 of 2021

¶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 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. 4118/2019/A5 dated 17.07.2019 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 Second Respondent in future, it shall be incumbent upon them to issue show

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 of 2021

¶30

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.

¶31

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

04.01.2023

Index : Yes/No

Note: Issue order copy by 30.01.2023.

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 of 2021

¶39

¶40

1.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶41

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruchirappalli.

¶42

2.The Inspector,

¶43

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Manapparai-2, cum Takkar of Arulmighu Velamalai Kannimar Thirukovil, Manapparai, Karadipatti, Velakurichi Village, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 of 2021

¶47

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶48

¶49

W.P. (MD) No. 5922 of 2021

¶50

04.01.2023

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

Malayandi v. the Asst Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malayandi v. the Asst 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

Sri Sarguru Rajayoga Sangam Vs the Commissioner

Soma.Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner