Dismissed

Hari Anand v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC15 Oct 2024WA(MD)/1635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Writ Court order holding that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is not applicable to proceedings before the Joint Commissioner under the TN H.R. & C.E. Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that only specific procedural rules apply, not substantive provisions.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

Hari Anand Vs The Joint Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.10.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024 and CMP(MD)No.12763 of 2024

Hari Anand

... Appellant

vs.

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶11

V.Rasu Pillai (Died)

¶12

M.Deivandran

¶13

V.Pichai Pillai

¶14

V.Mupilian

¶15

P.Ariyanayagam

¶16

R.Chinnadurai 7. The Executive Officer, A/m. Mahadevaswamy Temple, Raja Mill Road, Madurai.

¶17

8.. Maheshwari ... Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

Page No.1 of 5

¶20

W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024

¶21

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 11.06.2024 in W.P(MD)No.12140 of 2024.

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Kathiravan For R1 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For R7 : Mr.S.Manohar

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

( Judgement of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶25

We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal.

¶26

2 . The appellant resorted to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

¶27

Procedure to seek rejection of an application filed under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act''], before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Joint Commissioner rejected the said application on the ground that there are specific orders of this Court to conclude the hearing of the main Original Application namely, O.A.No.18 of 2014, which is already 10 years old.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No.2 of 5

¶30

¶31

W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024

¶32

3 . This rejection order was challenged by the appellant / petitioner before

¶33

the Writ Court. The Writ Court has held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be entertained by a Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Writ Court also referred to the very limited scope available for rejecting a proceeding under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, this order of the Writ Court that is under challenge before us.

¶34

4 . We have grave doubts about the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings before the Commissioner. Reliance was placed upon Rule 20 of the Holding of Inquiries Rules, which reads as follows:-

¶35

''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.''

¶36

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

¶37

Page No.3 of 5

¶38

¶39

W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024

¶40

5 . By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that this Rule could be

¶41

taken aid of to make Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act. Code of Civil Procedure made applicable is only to the limited extent of appearance of Pleaders, production of documents, examination of witnesses, taking of evidence, issue of commissions and return of admitted documents and other connected matters. The term ''other connected matters'' has to be read as ejusdem generis with the earlier part of the Rule. This will govern only the procedure for taking evidence and appearance of parties before the authorities. The other substantive provisions of the Code cannot be made applicable to such proceedings. Hence, we see no merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.) Index : Yes / No 15.10.2024 Neutral Citation : Yes / No smn2 To

¶43

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶44

Page No.4 of 5

¶45

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

¶46

W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024

¶47

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶48

smn2

¶49

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.1635 of 2024 DATED : 15.10.2024

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 5

Hari Anand v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Anand v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuppasamy Vs The Director

Arumigu Mariamman thirukovil Vs The District Collector

Pitchairaja .P Vs The Secretary to Government

The Managing Director Vs K.Kannadhasan (Staff No.97DR3018)

The Chief Educational Officer Vs v Janet Swerna Rubi

The Sub Registrar Vs Anthonyammal