Dismissed

M.P.Aravind Balaji v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC29 Aug 2025WP(MD)/23730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an impugned order under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Court held that service of notice on one legal representative satisfies the principles of natural justice and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies under Sections 21 or 79(2)(b) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to work out remedy under Sections 21 or 79(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

M.P.Aravind Balaji Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.23730 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.23730 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.18624 & 18626 of 2025

M.P.Aravind Balaji

..Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Dindigul.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Theni.

¶13

The Thakkar

¶14

Arulmigu Pillayar Temple, Unjampatti / The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Gowmari Amman Temple, Veerapandi, Theni Taluk and District.

¶15

M.Jayanthi 5. M.M.Pandian

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating with the impugned order passed in M.P.No. 45 of 2023 dated 14.08.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash 1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.23730 of 2025

¶20

the same as illegal and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manikkam For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Addl. Govt. Pleader (for R1 and R2)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner claims to be the son of late Radharani and M.M.Pandian, who are respondents in M.P.No.45 of 2023 initiated under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by the petitioner’s parents and one Jeyanthi.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question was purchased by the said Jeyanthi and the petitioner’s mother in the years 2005 and 2011, measuring 2 cents and 8 cents respectively, together forming a total extent of 10 cents. The petitioner’s mother passed away on 28.09.2023. Though the property stood in the name of the petitioner’s mother, it had been mortgaged to one Manimaran. However, no notice was issued either to the said Manimaran or to the petitioner, as one of the legal heirs of the deceased Radharani. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.23730 of 2025

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 submits that notice was duly served on the petitioner’s father, who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased P.Radharani.

¶29

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and service of notice on one of the legal representatives is sufficient, as such notice is deemed to represent the estate of the deceased and protect the interest of all other legal representatives. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to allege violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly when his own father was served with notice in the proceedings under Section 78 of the Act, which culminated in the impugned order dated 14.08.2025. In any event, the petitioner is not without remedy. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy under Section 21 or Section 79(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

29.08.2025

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.23730 of 2025

¶35

¶36

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Dindigul.

¶37

The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Theni.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.23730 of 2025

¶41

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶42

skn

¶43

Writ Petition(MD)No.23730 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.18624 & 18626 of 2025

¶44

29.08.2025

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

M.P.Aravind Balaji v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Aravind Balaji 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

V.Viswanathan Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

Chellaperumal P Vs The Secretary to Government

Shanmuganathan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Sarathkumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Priyadarshini Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Rajadurai Vs The Regional Passport Officer