Hari Anand v. The Joint Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.10779 of 2024 Hari Anand ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
V.Rasu Pillai (died) 2.M.Deivandran 3.V.Pichai Pillai 4.V.Mupilian 5.P.Ariyanayagam 6.R.Chinnadurai 7.The Executive Officer, A/m Madhanagopalsamy Temple, 1/10
Raja Mill Road, Madurai.
8.Maheshwari ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein dated 28.03.2024 in I.A.No.46 of 2023 in O.A.No.18 of 2014 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Sridharan For respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate for R1 Mr.S.Manohar for R7 *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after dispensing with the requirment of filing of counter by the respondents 1 and 7, who are present herein with the counter and after dispensing with the notice to the private respondents as no adverse order has proposed to be passed against them.
2. The petitioner is the son of Late.Mupiliapillai who was the second 2/10
respondent in O.A.No.18 of 2014 filed by the private respondent no.2 herein along with one Rasu Pillai who was since deceased. O.A.No.18 of 2014 was filed for the following relief:
"IX. The present petition is filed against the Respondents 1 and 2 and his family members only. The other group of Virattipathu and sithalankudi are not opposing nor interfering into the petitioner's celebration on the said day. Therefore, they are not added as a party herein and no relief is sought againt them. Hence, their presence in the present case is not necessary to decide the fact in dispute. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to grant order recognizing the exclusive customary rights of the petitioners to receive temple honour through their duly elected president on behalf of Thiruvalavaya Nallur pangaligal on the occasion of mahasivarathri festival at Arulmigu Mahadevasamy Temple, Madurai Town as the established usage of the institution."
3. The aforesaid petition was filed under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The petitioner's father was the second respondent in the aforesaid proceeding. It appears that after counter was filed on behalf of the first respondent in the aforesaid proceedings, not enquiry was held. Mean while, the petitioner's father, Late.Mupiliapillai, who was the second respondent in O.A.No.18 of 2014 died. Therefore, the petitioner and his mother were impleaded on 22.06.2022 vide order in I.A.No.03 of 2022 in 3/10
the O.A.No.18 of 2024 as his legal representatives. In the above O.A, the petitioner, filed I.A.No.46 of 2023, purportedly, under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the application in O.A.No.18 of 2014 filed under section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The aforesaid application has been, purportedly, filed under Holding of Inquires Rules framed by the Governor for the exercise of power vested with the Government under Section 116(2) of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959.
Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under:
"20.The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Order shall apply, as far as practicable, to appearance of pleader and to affidavits, production or documents, examination of witnesses, taking of oral evidence, proof of affidavits, filing 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 trail of suits."
4. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order passed in I.A.No.46 of 2023 by the first respondent, which has rejected the petitioner's prayer for rejecting the plaint/petition. The operative portion of the order is extracted as under:
4/10
5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there is no jurisdiction vested with the Joint Commissioner/the first respondent, where there is an inter-se dispute between the parties in respect of rights under Section 63(e) of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959. It is submitted that once there is inter5/10
se dispute between the parties, the parties have to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Court referred in A.Rajendran vs. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department in W.P.(MD).Nos.11977 of 2015 and 13352 of 2015 on 10.08.2015. Specifically, a reference is made to para 11 of the said decision, which reads as under:
"11. But, the reading of the above-said provision, does not speak about any inter se between the parties. Hence, in my considered opinion as to whether the petitioner or the private respondents has to conduct Adi Ammavasai festival in the temple located at foot hill is purely an inter-se dispute cited supra. As such, the same has to be decided only by the Civil Court based on the evidence that is going to be adduced by both the parties."
6. It is submitted that the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C is not maintainable.
7. This Writ Petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the seventh respondent/the Executive Officer of the temple. Both the counsel inform that the petitioner's father was the second respondent in the aforesaid proceedings and pleadings were 6/10
completed and therefore, merely because the petitioner's father died, the petitioner cannot file a fresh application to reject the plaint. It is submitted that the petitioner's father had acquiesced the proceedings as the proceedings is on the year 2014.
8. It is submitted that the application was, earlier, dismissed for nonprosecution and thereafter, the petitioner rushed to this Court and obtained an order in W.P.(MD).20769 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023, wherein, the order was passed and the application was directed to be restored.
9. It is submitted that in the compliance with the order of the Court, the application filed by the petitioner was taken up and has not been dismissed. That apart, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the seventh respondent in unison would submit that the scope of the inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C as made applicable to the proceedings before the Joint Commissioner/first respondent under the Holding of Inquiry Rules is confined only to the circumstances specified in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C and not into the merits.
7/10
10. I have considered the I.A.No.46 of 2023 and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and also the learned counsel for the seventh respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, a Court or an Authority cannot go into the merits. Therefore, the application has been rightly rejected. However, it would be different for the Joint Commissioner to give an independent conclusion as to whether O.A.No.18 of 2014 is maintainable or not on merits otherwise at the time of final disposal. Therefore, there is no merits in the present Writ Petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to request the Joint Commissioner to frame its preliminary issue as to whether the relief in O.A.No.18 of 2014 maintainable in the light of the decision of this Court in A.Rajendran vs.
The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department in W.P.(MD).Nos.11977 of 2015 and 13352 of 2015 on 10.08.2015 and other decisions of the Courts. In any event, O.A.No.18 of 2014 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on merits.
8/10
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 11.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.
9/10
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd 11.06.2024 10/10