Dismissed

Lakshmanan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC22 Mar 2024WP/7690/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to number a delayed appeal under Section 69(1) of the HR & CE Act. Following Supreme Court precedent that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply to statutory appeals, and Article 226 should not bypass limitation, the writ petition was dismissed with clarifications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with clarifications regarding suo motu revision under Section 69(2); no costs.

Lakshmanan Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 7690 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 7690 of 2024

Lakshmanan

… Petitioner

-vs-

The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner (Legal Cell) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Second Respondent in his proceedings N.Dis.No.264566/2024/D2 dated 01.02.2024 quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the First and Second Respondents to number the appeal filed by the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time fixed.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Dinesh

¶14

For Respondents : Mr. S.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P. No. 7690 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard Mr. M.Dinesh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

¶20

Mr. S.Ravichandran, Learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the

¶21

pleadings of the parties.

¶22

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem by Order dated 31.05.2007 in O.A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1998 had determined that K.Chinnasamy was the Hereditary Trustee of Sree Aanur Amman @ Chellandi Amman Temple (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple' for short) under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'HR & CE Act' for short). According to the Petitioner, he was not aware of the said order and on coming to know of it, he had preferred an appeal against it under Section 69(1) of the HR & CE Act before the First Respondent, who has declined to excuse the delay in filing such appeal beyond the permissible period of limitation referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesan -vs- Commissioner,

¶23

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [(2019) 7

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P. No. 7690 of 2024

¶27

SCC 108], by Proceedings in N.Dis. No. 264566/2024/D2 dated

¶28

01.02.2024, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was entitled to prefer an appeal against the said order under Section 69(1) of the HR & CE Act before the First Respondent within 60 days from the date of receipt of its copy, but such appeal had been presented after the expiry of the period of limitation along with the application to condone that delay. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesan -vs- Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [(2019) 7 SCC 108] that the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, is restricted to any suit, appeal or application filed in a 'Court' and cannot be pressed in service with regard to filing of appeal before the Statutory Authorities and Tribunals provided in a special or local law. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [(2020) 19 SCC 681] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. In view

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P. No. 7690 of 2024

¶33

of that legal position, it is not possible to entertain this Writ Petition challenging the order of the First Respondent, but as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ganesan -vs- Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [(2019) 7 SCC 108], it would not preclude the First Respondent to exercise powers of suo motu revision conferred under Section 69(2) of the HR & CE Act for which there is no period of limitation prescribed in that enactment and will be without prejudice to any other remedy open to the aggrieved person in law.

¶34

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid

¶35

clarifications. No costs.

¶36

22.03.2024

¶37

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶38

Note: Issue order copy by 29.05.2024.

¶39

Maya