Allowed¶23

Ponselvan v. Vs The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jan 2025WP(MD)/3150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Certiorari under Article 226; Section 49(1) TN HR&CE Act 1959; no prior notice to Administrative Trustee; violation of principles of natural justice; impugned order dated 23.11.2022 (Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 5986/2022/Aa1) of Assistant Commissioner HR&CE Thoothukudi set aside; liberty to proceed afresh after notice; writ petition allowed; connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2926 and 2927 of 2023 closed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice K.Kumaresh Babu; decided 22.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside, however with liberty to the second respondent to proceed afresh after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner or any other interested persons and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶23

Ponselvan v Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order, passed without giving prior notice to the petitioner (who is the Administrative Trustee of the temple) before exercise of powers under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and warranted interference.

¶21

Court's answer

A perusal of the impugned order shows that it does not refer to any notice issued by the second respondent to the petitioner.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

As the impugned order was made in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court was inclined to interfere with it.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), K.Kumaresh Babu, J., 22.01.2025 — W.P.(MD) No.3150 of 2023 allowed. Three petitioners, including V.Ponselvan, the Administrative Trustee of the temple, challenged the order dated 23.11.2022 of the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Thoothukudi District (Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 5986/2022/Aa1), contending that before exercise of powers under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, no notice had been given to the petitioner. Finding that the impugned order referred only to the report of the Inspector, Sathankulam, dated 05.11.2022, and to no notice issued by the second respondent, the Court held the order was made in violation of the principles of natural justice, allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order with liberty to the second respondent to proceed afresh after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner or other interested persons and pass orders on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2926 and 2927 of 2023 closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3150 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3150 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2926 and 2927 of 2023

¶7

1.V.Ponselvan

¶8

2.S.Sundararaj

¶9

3.S.Kandasamy .. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

2.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 5986/2022/Aa1 dated 23.11.2022 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Swamy

¶15

_________Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.3150 of 2023

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The primordial contention in challenging the impugned order is

¶21

that prior to exercise of powers under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, no notice had been given to the petitioner, who is the Administrative Trustee of the temple.

¶22

A perusal of the order impugned also do not refer any such notice that had been issued by the second respondent to the petitioner and it only refers to a report filed by the Inspector, Sathankulam, dated 05.11.2022 and the present impugned order had been passed on 23.11.2022. In view that such order had been made in violation of the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to interfere with the same.

¶23

In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, however with liberty to the second respondent to proceed

¶24

_________Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.3150 of 2023

¶27

afresh, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner or any other interested persons and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

22.01.2025

¶29

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

¶30

abr

¶31

¶32